4 ms·

I was tweeting the other day that we now live in a world where the president of the United States can, without judicial review, assassinate with robots an Ameri

I was tweeting the other day that we now live in a world where the president of the United States can, without judicial review, assassinate with robots an American Citizen living abroad because of their speech and influence on terrorists. Sounded crazy -- "death by robots" -- but that's about where we are (I don't differentiate between remote-operated vehicles and fully autonomous vehicles because it's not germane) We can't and won't torture a guy we pick up with a rocket launcher in his hand getting ready to kill us, but we can push a button and whack somebody who hangs out with really bad people. Don't forget collateral damage. And we call this morality. Telemetry and robotics are going to change the world in wildly dramatic ways over the next 50 years. Places like HN are where somewhat knowledgeable people can kick around these ideas now, before everybody and his NGO have their own killer robots.

dantheman 15y ago
We should never torture anyone for any reason, period. Including that in your statement above makes it sound like your endorse torture, I hope that you do not. We should also never, kill anyone who isn't a direct threat (e.g. on the battle field, shooting a cops/civilians, etc) regardless of where they are and whether or not they're US civilians. The assassination of OBL falls under the same idea, he should have been captured and tried by a jury.
adamjernst 15y ago
"Hangs out with really bad people"? Please. You make it sound like Anwar al-Awlaki had a beer with al Qaeda so we decided to whack him. When someone is active on the battlefield, and there's no way to physically capture him, what do you expect?
- wvoq 15y ago
  > You make it sound like Anwar al-Awlaki had a beer with al Qaeda so we decided to whack him. Well, that's practically all that we know-- he was killed for propagandizing on behalf of some terrible ideas. But it isn't illegal to propagandize on behalf of terrible ideas, whereas it is illegal to execute US citizens because you find them loathsome and geo-strategically inconvenient. Wouldn't it be nice if we could learn publicly what Anwar al-Awlaki actually did, and whether his actions were criminal? As far as I can tell, it's unclear whether anything al-Awlaki did would actually satisfy the "imminent lawless action" test in a civilian criminal court. I suspect the senior officials responsible for his assassination understand this too, which is why they would prefer to dispense with the niceties of extradition and trial. So here's where we find ourselves: in a world in which the US government openly assassinates US citizens who have not been convicted of any crime, and no one bats an eyelash.
grandalf 15y ago
Following the Vietnam era, planners began to fear that the US would never again go to war. War was just to messy, too cruel, too close to home. It created amputees, homeless vets, PTSD, etc. The public's distaste for war was not of a moral nature, it was a byproduct of an increasing standard of living. Life was easier, people saw less suffering and death, expected more from life, etc. As with the space program, America's worship of technology could be leveraged to build super weapons... but only if those weapons led to "hygienic" war in which Americans didn't have to see the horrors firsthand. So our defense contractors built smart bombs, highly accurate missiles, etc. UAVs are just the next step. The future holds both precision insect-size (or smaller) attack robots, as well as massive space-based lasers (the death star was uncannily prescient) aimed at earth and able to vaporize nearly anything that isn't heavily armed. All of this will be controlled by a smaller and smaller class of military personnel. Gone will be the days of recruiting welfare recipients to enlist. The debacle over "Star Wars" as envisioned by Reagan was mostly b/c the technology wasn't mature enough at the time. But just as George W. Bush jumped at the chance to wage two large wars (b/c the public momentarily would consent) there will come another moment for space based lasers, and we can be sure that our planners will not let that opportunity go to waste. The recent stories about the drone fleet being pwned, followed by the stories about the Chinese building drones, are designed to get the average person to say "Darn it we need America to be a leader in Drone tech, let's spare no expense to have the very best". Nowhere in the trajectory toward space based lasers and assassination drones is any moral concern likely to emerge. Why? Because when war is hygienic nobody realizes that it's ugly and worthy of moral reasoning. The discussion becomes about the merits of one technology vs another, one nation's tech vs another, not about what horrific purposes these devices will actually be used for. So your point is well taken. And it is not lost on our planners. Have you ever wondered why Rumsfeld made such a big deal about saying "Damn it, the US will torture whomever it likes!". Not b/c this was new policy, or b/c he wasn't well aware that his remarks would create a shitstorm. He made the remarks to distract everybody (hawks and human rights activists alike) from what was actually happening. It worked incredibly well. Finally he resigned to leave the impression that he'd been somehow a loose cannon and not a master player in an amazingly well executed propaganda campaign.

dantheman 15y ago

We should never torture anyone for any reason, period. Including that in your statement above makes it sound like your endorse torture, I hope that you do not. We should also never, kill anyone who isn't a direct threat (e.g. on the battle field, shooting a cops/civilians, etc) regardless of where they are and whether or not they're US civilians. The assassination of OBL falls under the same idea, he should have been captured and tried by a jury.

adamjernst 15y ago

"Hangs out with really bad people"? Please. You make it sound like Anwar al-Awlaki had a beer with al Qaeda so we decided to whack him. When someone is active on the battlefield, and there's no way to physically capture him, what do you expect?

wvoq 15y ago
> You make it sound like Anwar al-Awlaki had a beer with al Qaeda so we decided to whack him. Well, that's practically all that we know-- he was killed for propagandizing on behalf of some terrible ideas. But it isn't illegal to propagandize on behalf of terrible ideas, whereas it is illegal to execute US citizens because you find them loathsome and geo-strategically inconvenient. Wouldn't it be nice if we could learn publicly what Anwar al-Awlaki actually did, and whether his actions were criminal? As far as I can tell, it's unclear whether anything al-Awlaki did would actually satisfy the "imminent lawless action" test in a civilian criminal court. I suspect the senior officials responsible for his assassination understand this too, which is why they would prefer to dispense with the niceties of extradition and trial. So here's where we find ourselves: in a world in which the US government openly assassinates US citizens who have not been convicted of any crime, and no one bats an eyelash.

grandalf 15y ago

Following the Vietnam era, planners began to fear that the US would never again go to war. War was just to messy, too cruel, too close to home. It created amputees, homeless vets, PTSD, etc. The public's distaste for war was not of a moral nature, it was a byproduct of an increasing standard of living. Life was easier, people saw less suffering and death, expected more from life, etc. As with the space program, America's worship of technology could be leveraged to build super weapons... but only if those weapons led to "hygienic" war in which Americans didn't have to see the horrors firsthand. So our defense contractors built smart bombs, highly accurate missiles, etc. UAVs are just the next step. The future holds both precision insect-size (or smaller) attack robots, as well as massive space-based lasers (the death star was uncannily prescient) aimed at earth and able to vaporize nearly anything that isn't heavily armed. All of this will be controlled by a smaller and smaller class of military personnel. Gone will be the days of recruiting welfare recipients to enlist. The debacle over "Star Wars" as envisioned by Reagan was mostly b/c the technology wasn't mature enough at the time. But just as George W. Bush jumped at the chance to wage two large wars (b/c the public momentarily would consent) there will come another moment for space based lasers, and we can be sure that our planners will not let that opportunity go to waste. The recent stories about the drone fleet being pwned, followed by the stories about the Chinese building drones, are designed to get the average person to say "Darn it we need America to be a leader in Drone tech, let's spare no expense to have the very best". Nowhere in the trajectory toward space based lasers and assassination drones is any moral concern likely to emerge. Why? Because when war is hygienic nobody realizes that it's ugly and worthy of moral reasoning. The discussion becomes about the merits of one technology vs another, one nation's tech vs another, not about what horrific purposes these devices will actually be used for. So your point is well taken. And it is not lost on our planners. Have you ever wondered why Rumsfeld made such a big deal about saying "Damn it, the US will torture whomever it likes!". Not b/c this was new policy, or b/c he wasn't well aware that his remarks would create a shitstorm. He made the remarks to distract everybody (hawks and human rights activists alike) from what was actually happening. It worked incredibly well. Finally he resigned to leave the impression that he'd been somehow a loose cannon and not a master player in an amazingly well executed propaganda campaign.