> Is it not warfare to kill someone that is plotting on harming civilians as a primary means to advance their agenda?
I think you just defined a whole lot of law enforcement operations as warfare. I do not agree with that definition, nor do I suspect many would.
If the US had invaded Yemen and they were targeting specific people to help with their strategic objectives there, that would be a more fuzzy area, and the morality of that would depend on the situation of the invasion.
As it stands, the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with.
That said, where do you personally draw the line? Now, take that situation and imagine that instead of the US sending robots to kill muslim preachers, that some place like Iran or China had sent in robots to the US to kill a US citizen like Jim Bell (after all, he has advocated for assassination markets, so the same argument can be made that he is dangerous). Is the line in the same place in that situation?
>the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with.
Because we are not fighting a state. We are cooperating with these countries not fighting them. They don't have the resources (or the resources are unreliable) to treat these things as law enforcement problems.
And I'd personally draw the line at a clear and credible threat. If they demonstrate they have the will and have, or are actively trying to obtain, the means to attack.
For example, if someone speaks about killing people then amasses a bunch of explosives, it is time to act. If someone seems to be acting in a command capacity to people that have the means and will, as previously described, it is time to act.
On the other hand, if someone happens to be in contact with someone in that first group but does not seem to be aiding them (passing commands, gathering materials etc.) then that person should not be targeted.
If we could go to these countries and tell them "Listen, we have intelligence telling us that this person is training people and sending them into this country to kill people. Could you go grab them for questioning and maybe gather some evidence and put them on trial?" and if they would act on that, that'd be great. I'd be all for that. But that seems like wishful thinking more than anything.
I think you just defined a whole lot of law enforcement operations as warfare. I do not agree with that definition, nor do I suspect many would.
If the US had invaded Yemen and they were targeting specific people to help with their strategic objectives there, that would be a more fuzzy area, and the morality of that would depend on the situation of the invasion.
As it stands, the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with.
That said, where do you personally draw the line? Now, take that situation and imagine that instead of the US sending robots to kill muslim preachers, that some place like Iran or China had sent in robots to the US to kill a US citizen like Jim Bell (after all, he has advocated for assassination markets, so the same argument can be made that he is dangerous). Is the line in the same place in that situation?