Re:The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep
by AndrewKemendo on Sunday June 10, 2018 @03:26PM
(#17279763)
My point was, the line in which you think your contribution to the system is impactful is arbitrary. So for example is paying taxes the line for when you should protest? What about living in the state of California? How about being an employee of Google? Maybe it's being part of the program as a PM? Maybe it's a labeler for the dataset for enemy combatants?
So yes, the line of demarcation between when you feel you are complicit with the "immoral" behavior is arbitrary and not based on any legal basis.
extrajudicial killings of political opponents
It's important to note that this is not true legally. It conflicts with EO 12333 [1] [2]. The targeting process for any airstrike (except in VERY rare cases like Op Neptune) goes through a very complex, legal de-confliction process in close coordination with local governments/militaries and is not done for political purposes. In this sense "political" is a term of art, not a statement about the philosophical position of a potential target.
I think the major problem here is the massive disparity with what the general public thinks they know about airstrikes in general and UAV strikes (aka drone) specifically. The general public has about 1/1000th of the information they need to understand it and how it actually happens in practice. The DoD is largely to blame for not being more explicit about this, but there are real concerns with security/secrecy.
So yes, the line of demarcation between when you feel you are complicit with the "immoral" behavior is arbitrary and not based on any legal basis.
extrajudicial killings of political opponents
It's important to note that this is not true legally. It conflicts with EO 12333 [1] [2]. The targeting process for any airstrike (except in VERY rare cases like Op Neptune) goes through a very complex, legal de-confliction process in close coordination with local governments/militaries and is not done for political purposes. In this sense "political" is a term of art, not a statement about the philosophical position of a potential target.
I think the major problem here is the massive disparity with what the general public thinks they know about airstrikes in general and UAV strikes (aka drone) specifically. The general public has about 1/1000th of the information they need to understand it and how it actually happens in practice. The DoD is largely to blame for not being more explicit about this, but there are real concerns with security/secrecy.
[1] https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...
[2] https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/target...