Last week, the White House revealed that in January, the government launched its 446th drone into a foreign land, and this one killed three Americans and an Italian, none of whom had been targeted or posed a threat to national security at the time of his murder. The drone, which was dispatched by a computer in Virginia, was aimed at a house in Pakistan and was sent on its lethal way without the approval of the Pakistani government or the knowledge of President Obama.
The use of drones is not only constitutionally impermissible but also contraindicated by the rules of war, writes Andrew Napolitano. Drones pose no threat and little danger to those doing the killing. Except when the intelligence is bad—as it was in the January case revealed last week—deploying drones is a low-risk endeavor for the country doing so. But Obama's wars by robots produce more killing than is necessary, argues Judge Napolitano. War should be dangerous for all sides so as to limit its lethality to only those venues that are worth the risk—those that are vital for national security.
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.