Drones cannot comply with law-enforcement rules because they offer no graded force options
Evidence
Given that there can be no gradation in its use of force, the drone is incapable of conforming to the very specific principle of proportionality that applies in the law enforcement paradigm. As Mary Ellen O’Connell explains: “What drones cannot do is comply with police rules for the use of lethal force away from the battlefield. In law enforcement it must be possible to warn before using lethal force.” — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 542
Categorization
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 542
- XREF: connects to: Neither law-enforcement nor laws-of-war frameworks can legally justify drone strikes; The drone’s impossibility of capture deliberately converts kill into the only option — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 544; Choosing a legal framework would render US drone strikes unlawful — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 537 (+1 more)
Related
- Choosing a legal framework would render US drone strikes unlawful (similarity 0.88)
- Neither law-enforcement nor laws-of-war frameworks can legally justify drone strikes (similarity 0.88)
- Clarity on legal framework would prohibit most current drone strikes (similarity 0.84)
- The US deliberately maintains legal ambiguity about drone strikes even in court (similarity 0.82)
- The drone’s impossibility of capture deliberately converts kill into the only option (similarity 0.82)
- Drones abolish the condition of combat that makes combatants identifiable. (similarity 0.81)
- US justifies drone strikes by blending two inconsistent legal paradigms (similarity 0.81)
- Drone strikes outside declared battlefields violate international law (similarity 0.81)
- Drones are less precise than rifles and grenades at discriminating targets. (similarity 0.81)
- Drones are nondiscriminatory because excluding combat erases the combatant-noncombatant distinction. (similarity 0.80)
- Drone missiles have larger lethal radii than conventional infantry weapons (similarity 0.80)
- Drone warfare creates a new configuration that is neither war nor peace (similarity 0.80)
- Drones resolve the guerrilla problem by depriving insurgents of any target to attack. (similarity 0.79)
- Drone strikes amount tactically to the state’s version of insurgent bomb attacks. (similarity 0.79)
- Drone use lowers the threshold so violence becomes the default foreign policy option. (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- The drone’s impossibility of capture deliberately converts kill into the only option
#corroborates(0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 544 - Neither law-enforcement nor laws-of-war frameworks can legally justify drone strikes
#complicates(0.55) - Choosing a legal framework would render US drone strikes unlawful
#contradicts(0.45) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 537 - The US deliberately maintains legal ambiguity about drone strikes even in court
#contradicts(0.35) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 536