Lawyers try, again, to gum up the works....
The Switchblade drone appears to be an improvement as an alternative to traditional drone strikes, in terms of minimizing civilian harm, but it also raises new concerns, said Naureen Shah, associate director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project at Columbia Law School.
She pointed out that when a drone strike is being considered there are teams of lawyers, analysts and military personnel looking at the data to determine whether lethal force is necessary. But the Switchblade could shorten that "kill chain."
"It delegates full responsibility to a lower-level soldier on the ground," she said. "That delegation is worrisome. It's a situation that could end up in more mistakes being made."
Arms-control advocates also have concerns. As these small robotic weapons proliferate, they worry about what could happen if the drones end up in the hands of terrorists or other hostile forces.
There is no pleasing these people. They do not trust soldiers of the world's finest military to make on-the-spot judgments that likely will be right more often than not. Would lawyers remotely placed do better? Would the enemy escape whilst lawyers agonize over whether a mini-drone should be launched? Would a sniper targeting our soldiers score extra hits while approval is pending?
Bottom Line. Micromanagement of battlefield events invites more harm done and fewer necessary tasks accomplished.
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, National Security, Foreign Policy, Conservative Politics
Comments