The philosopher making the moral case for US drones: 'There's no downside'

It's one of the US's most controversial policies; one that resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths overseas. So why does Bradley Strawser see targeted killing as a moral obligation?
The philosopher making the moral case for US drones: 'There's no downside' | World news | guardian.co.uk

My own views are that if the assault itself is justified, than drones are probably a better moral option than normal methods, since reduce heat of the moment passion or error, can be recorded to help accountability, and have should be more accurate given the supporting techonology.
But - this is very easily confused with the morality of the attack, and in particular 'kill lists' of unconventional enemies, which is another matter entirely.
Perhaps the most worrying fact about drones per se, is that the ease,  dispassionate, and removed nature of their use, might mean they are over used, without proper consideration or analysis. if the stakes are high for the aggressor, then more justification, including moral justification, is generally sought.

Extracts from the article :

• One objection sometimes posited is that there is something wrong or ignoble in killing through such lopsided asymmetry. "I share the kind of gut feeling that there's something odd about that. But I don't see the ethical problem. What matters to me is whether the cause itself is justified. Because if the operation is justified and is the right thing to do ? and by the way I'm not claiming all US military strikes are ? then asymmetry doesn't matter."
• Strawser said a third objection, that drones encouraged unjust operations by reducing the financial and political cost to the US, was serious but surmountable
• Strawser says cases where drone strikes allegedly killed innocents would be unjustified, but did not render the technology illegitimate. "If the policy to begin with is wrong then of course we shouldn't do it. It's irrelevant if we use drones, a sniper rifle or a crossbow." He says he considers poison gas and nuclear weapons inherently wrong because they did not discriminate ? unlike drones.
• "The question is whether drones will tempt us to do wrong things. But it doesn't seem so because we have cases where drones were used justly and it seems they actually improve our ability to behave justly. Literally every action they do is recorded. For a difficult decision (operators) can even wait and bring other people into the room. There's more room for checks and oversights. That to me seems a normative gain."
• Straswer says he understands why many shuddered over revelations of the so-called White House "kill lists" but believes it, in fact, shows accountability at the highest level, unlike Abu Ghraib, when authorities pinned blame on lower ranks