Aletho News


Obama’s Favorite Weapons

By Nat Hentoff | CATO | April 14, 2010

With President Barack Obama’s firm approval, CIA pilotless Predator and Reaper drone planes — firing Hellfire missiles — are killing actual and suspected high-level terrorists. As Jane Perlez reports (New York Times, April 4), “flying overhead, sometimes four at a time” in Pakistan, the drones are also engaged in targeted assassinations in Afghanistan. It has been reported — but the CIA and Obama give us no facts — that in his first year, Obama has authorized more of these strikes than in President George W. Bush’s eight years.

Operated half a world away by remote control in Langley, VA., and outside of Las Vegas, the deaths sometimes unintentionally include those of innocent civilians, and are criticized here and in the targeted countries as “extra-judicial executions.”

Amid the growing controversy, State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh insists that these drone attacks “comply with all applicable law, including the (international) laws of war.” (“Legality of Drone Strikes Still in Question,” InterPress Service, April 3).

The United States, he explains, “is in armed conflict with al-Qaida as well as the Taliban and associated forces in response to the horrific attacks of 9/11.”

Koh, when he was Dean of Yale Law School, was a strong critic of the legal rationalizations of the Bush-Cheney war on terrorism. He is now part of what I call “The Obama Metamorphosis,” along with such other vehement opponents of the previous administration’s “dark side” as Attorney General Eric Holder and CIA Director Leon Panetta. These former critics are now loyal members of the Obama team.

There is some concern within the Obama administration that the drone planes’ corollary termination of civilians may aid our enemies’ recruiting efforts, as did the Bush torture policies at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. But Koh claims it is required that “the damage to civilians caused by those attacks … not be excessive.”

However, The Economist in England speaks of “a moral quandary” when “drone attacks often kill civilians,” pointing to “June 23, 2009, for example, an attack on a funeral in South Waziristan” (in northwest Pakistan, bordering on Afghanistan.) Those Hellfire missiles “killed 80 non-combatants.”

Does Koh regard that “damage” as “excessive?” Does Panetta? The ACLU has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for answers to such questions, along with many other acutely relevant queries on what the Predators and Reapers are doing in our name. As of this writing, there has yet to be a reply to this uncomfortable FOIA request.

The Economist’s report on “remote-control warfare” refers troublingly to an ongoing refinement in automated warfare aimed at answering those here and abroad who are questioning the ethics of this futuristic form of combat. Cited is Ronald Arkin of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Interactive Computing.

He “proposes involving the drone itself — or rather, the software that is used to operate it — in the decision to attack.

“In effect,” the article continues, “he plans to give the machine a conscience.”

Is this science-fiction? As I will demonstrate next week, Arkin is not alone among American high-tech explorers devising non-human target killings in attacks on terrorism. To elaborate on the inventive Arkin approach, “The software conscience that Dr. Arkin and his colleagues have developed is called Ethical Architecture.”

During attacks, the judgment of the automated and autonomous Predator or Reaper drone “may be better than a human’s because it operates so fast and knows so much. And — like a human but unlike most machines — it can learn.” After a strike, this ever-alert machine can indeed learn from other sources whether the damage it caused — including dead civilians — exceeded its intentions.

With this information, a drone with a conscience can more precisely tailor future attacks and instruct other drones on how to more carefully direct their Hellfire missiles. Thereby, these ethical drones can provide support to future American officials defending the use of killer drones by showing how carefully the United States is working to be humane in its self-defense against international terrorism.

On March 23, in testimony before the House National Security subcommittee’s largely pro-drone panel. John Edward Jackson, professor of unmanned systems at the U.S. Naval War College, warned:

“If trends in computer science and robotics engineering continue, it is conceivable that autonomous systems could soon be developed that are capable of making life and death decisions without direct human intervention.” (Dan Froomkin,, March 24).

Another witness, Edward Barrett — director of research for the U.S. Naval Academy’s ethics and military policy think tank at the Stockdale Center — focused on whether these autonomous drones would make waging war too easy as this intensive research on robotic warfare continues.

He asked whether these nonhuman attacks “reduce the vigor with which nonviolent alternatives are pursued, and thus encourage unnecessary — and therefore unjust — wars.”

Added ethicist Edward Barrett: “Would a self-conscious and willful machine choose its own ends?”

Next week: More specific factual information on the active planning to make robotic warfare more “humane” and, indeed, human. It would be very helpful if President Obama would tell us — at a nationally televised press conference — what his own concerns are about this rapidly developing global technology.

Will there be any mention of drones by candidates of either party in the midterm elections?

April 26, 2010 - Posted by | Aletho News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes


  1. It’s understandable that we persist in 2,000+ year old patterned thinking: competitive efforts to achieve and maintain ‘power-over’ by manipulation and maneuvering by whatever means (usually financial and military). However, as Buckminster Fuller observed, “it’s touch and go” whether or not humanity survives itself, and the time to shift to a cooperative, uplifting, pattern of thought is running short. At around the turn of the 20th C. to the 21st, increasing research evidence of innate capacity for empathy was offered to the public. We have long been aware informally of this. We’ve also long been aware of co-operation as an innate impulse. My experience with young elementary school children has shown me that both empathy and cooperation are vigorous, as is an innate sense of justice. These fade, are supplanted with rising ‘self-interest’ as children are coached by culture to ‘protect themselves’ against ‘foolish and misplaced’,(uncalculated)generosity. It’s my belief that we are doomed if we don’t ‘go back to the drawing board’ and re-examine human potential. Obviously we can’t suddenly abandon our warring ways – but we must design, with intent and intelligence, the improved ‘versions’ of human social/political dynamics. (This is my constant drumbeat! I posted a blog on this, based on drones assigned to Libya, only today.) Thanks for offering discussion! That’s one of the ways we can begin to make an essential shift! –Maggie


    Comment by maggieannthoeni | April 22, 2011

    • Capitalism is the root cause . As you state the children change and they change since they learn the value of money for themselves and what it will bring to themselves…….Socialist government is the only way to save ourselves. One for all and all for one………..


      Comment by kim | April 25, 2011

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.