We’ve been making this argument in JAG circles for years. I frankly have a hard time seeing how they’re not unlawful, or in violation of the “no assassinations” EO. But hey, that’s just me...
Colonel, USAFR
The article seemed reasonable to my non lawyer mind, but couldn’t and shouldn’t these legalities be handled by some simple legal paperwork that the government should already have been doing?
The Constitution clearly authorizes letters of marque and reprisal. Aren’t those who operate under LOM&R essentially civilian contractors carrying war to the enemies of the US, authorized to do so by US law and US chain of command? Why are the CIA guys and their contractors any different?
How close are these drone pilots to the “Flying Tigers” in military status?
Calling it "assassination" doesn't make it so. The role of drones strikes me as more parallel to a sniper on the battlefield, one who shoots an enemy combatant who is not in a position to shoot back. How is the sniper's action unlawful, or is it okay? How is the drone pilot's action different, or is it also okay? As for a uniform, the marked drone's pilot is not on the field of battle, so there is no point in a uniform. If there is a difference, does putting only uniformed personnel at the controls solve the problem? I'd say it does and that makes them quite clearly legally and morally equivalent to their fellow uniformed soldiers - Army snipers.