Drone Warfare does more good than harm

Arguments:1. Drone killings are inhumaneBy using drones, the U.S. distances delegates the killing of the target (and more) down to the push of a button (figuratively) sometimes thousands of miles away. Almost like in a video game, the people operating these drones can become desensitized to their robbing of human lives because of their distance from the battlefield. By only viewing situations to the monitor, operators can simply point and shoot with no regrets. This also leads to a broadening of places where the U.S. can attack with their drones. Take for example Yemen. We're clearly not in an official state of war with the country of Yemen yet we have killed more than 1000 people there [1] Crude? Yes. Effective? Well....2. Not as effective as believedWhile it may be true that the Hellfire missiles shot from various drones are accurate, that doesn't mean these drones are effective. Huge estimates range from 1.76 [2] to 83 percent strike accuracy. These figures range greatly however as a quick glance at the Civilian Casualty category at http://en.wikipedia.org... reveals. Even so, it is plain to see that American drone strikes have been used to kill terrorists even when there are civilians and even children around. A case was filed against the U.S. by a public rights group in the UK in the United Nations Human Rights Council, revolving around the deaths of a family, many of which were only children [3]. Children are often killed in attacks as well as civilians but an exact number is not known. Many a times, civilians nearby were too afraid to "check out" the scene of the attack where they could help the injured and get an accurate body count. Often, it was the U.S. drones preventing them from approaching the area [4]. This is a clear case of human rights abuse and obviously goes against the stereotype that the drones are quick killers, precisely killing their targets before disappearing into the sky.3. Abuses of powerDrone strikes aren't the work of one man and I won't go spouting the conspiracy theories on how "Obama can kill anyone at anytime!". However, Obama and his administrators do have a lot of power with these remote-controlled war machines, power that can be hard to keep in check [5]. Also, drones are becoming more and more powerful. They are also being produced not only as a foreign aide in disputes but are also poised to enter the domestic scene. Even today, drones are able to listen in to conversations, take detailed photos, and more, all from a safe distance, while the victim doesn't realize anything. The FAA estimates that in 20 years, drones could become commonplace in America [6]. 4. Other optionsWhen the U.S. needed Osama Bin Laden dead, they didn't go sending in some drone. No, Obama chose Seal Team Six to do the job to make sure Osama would be killed. Risking American lives? Yes. But it's not like the men in our military are being forced overseas against their will. They know the risks. Sending in a team when a suspect is found insures the fact that the person that the U.S. kills is the suspect they are after for. Also, if it's the wrong guy, the U.S. knows this, rather if a drone strike had taken the suspect out, the U.S. might've mistaken a mangled body for their suspect. Also, the lessening of drone strikes would relieve the terror that many civilians live in, as drones buzz above their head day and night while they go about their daily lives fearful that it could end at any moment [7].[1] http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...[2] http://dronedata.wordpress.com...[3] http://www.reprieve.org.uk...[4,7] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[5] http://www.nytimes.com...[6] http://reason.com...