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.
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.
That’s the point: CIA officers are not military members. Having military members flying planes/UAVs that have weapons systems is clearly within the Law of Armed Conflict. Having civilians fly unarmed UAVs is well within CIA’s ISR bailiwick. Having civilians flying armed UAVs is, to my military mind, a bad idea.
Colonel, USAFR