Australia follows US drone lead

He consorted with militants and was possibly directly involved in war activities. War is War. Innocent people die all the time.

Perhaps, Fatima, the CIA should use IEDs and suicide bombers. These are much more able to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

Terrorists taking out thousands of civilians worldwide is also against humanitarian law. Somewhere along the way restraint and respect from both sides has to prevail. Sadly Pakistan over the years has ignored or failed to detect terrorists hiding, training and operating from within it's borders. It's about time all countries 'normalised' their activities and treated human life as the most precious commodity on earth and put aside religious differences for the sake of peace.

What is the in principle argument against drones here? That one can remotely attack one's enemy? Perhaps we should throw away all our guns, bazookas and other projectile weapons, and go in with swords alone? Hang on, even the sword is a "remote" attack weapon of sorts. So ... bare hands?

In our imperfect world it seems necessary for nations to maintain armed forces but the influence of the military supply industry, especially in the USA, seems to be excessive. As Kenneth Galbraith comments in 'The Good Society', 'The American military establishment effectively and independently decides on its own budget, on the extent and the use of the money it receives.' Unfortunately this sets an example for other countries- 'the arms race' - and worthwhile, even essential, services such as health and education are deprived of sufficient funds.

-Drones? Now, does it matter if drones wear boots or fly? Drones direct the wars we all enjoy so much, drones fight in them, fly in them, sail in them. Drones sit in parliaments voting to send rones to wars. Drones vote for drones voting for war, and love it. 'It's just like Gallipoli again' 'It's our brave boys''war brings out the real spirit of the Aussie' and so on, and on, and on. We need to look beyond the objection to these latest versions of the war drone and ask ourselves why we are so eager to support the flesh drones who glory in the wars in every generation.

The sad irony is that in fighting a war to defend America’s way of life, the US is employing a means that directly undermines one of its own keystones, respect for the rule of law. It goes beyond weak legal restraints. As Philip Alston, a NY Uni law professor who served as the U.N. special rapporteur for extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary has noted, "There is no meaningful domestic accountability for a burgeoning program of international killing." Alston argues "The result is the steady undermining of the international rule of law, and the setting of legal precedents which will inevitably come back to haunt the United States before long when invoked by other states with highly problematic agendas." Once again, Lincoln’s warning to a free nation that the greatest danger will come not from abroad but ‘must spring up amongst us’ is prescient.

Fatima, You write with passion of the injustices and moral turpitude of attacking a deadly enemy and ,as in all war, the destruction of innocent life caught in the crossfire. I suspect that when an enemy chooses to operate from a non-military establishment and to use the shield of a civilian community without military identification,innocent people will inevitably be killed. Perhaps that is the greater moral turpitude for which the government of Pakistan is responsible. Terrorist Islam on the other hand does not target military establishments in the main but rather deliberately attacks innocent civilians. The deaths of these civilians are not.the side effect of attacking a military enemy. It would be interesting to read your assessment of the morality of this activity and what the urgent responsibilities of the world might be in response. Perhaps then , with an argument that assesses both sides of the coin might suggest a solution which partisan appraisal is unlikely to offer.

There is nothing new about drones. They were used in WW2 by Germany (V1 and V2). We had changes mainly of technological nature and in the nature of its use. Instead of using drones as a terror weapon as in WW2, they are used to eye pick high value military targets in order to reduce civilian casualties. It would be irresponsible for the USA and or Australia not to use technology to save the lives of its soldiers.

Well said, John Frawley.

As always, the problem is not the technology but the way it is applied. Moral turpitude exists on all sides in the undeclared combat zones of insurgency. Target acquisition is a deadly science and profoundly inaccurate in areas where someone can be a combatant one moment and innocent civilian the next. The US should pay more attention to its rules of engagement, yes. But drones are effective weapons (especially as deterrents).

If it weren't for the rise of secular Mid-East dictators propped up by the West, the fundamentalist Islamic militant movement would not be such a threat to world stability. Drones are merely are faceless and cowardly way for the US and its allies to deal with a problem of their own making.

Thanks everyone for engaging with my article. It is difficult to disagree that in war, civilians sometimes get killed. But I reject the idea that the conduct of terrorists makes it permissible for western forces to negligently kill non combatants. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found that CIA drones have struck rescuers and funerals in Pakistan <http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/>, which do not fit military objectives (as defined by international humanitarian law). The legitimacy of drone targets ought to be a greater burden than it currently seems to be. Otherwise, where lies the difference between our enemies and ourselves? I also reiterate that the use of drones only serves the war hawks. Wars may be part of our global reality, but we forget that they are not the only solution to conflict, and when we wage them, they must be just both in cause and conduct. It is difficult to imagine 'winning' any war where the death of civilians turns subsequent generations against us.

Thanks everyone for engaging with my article. It is difficult to disagree that in war, civilians sometimes get killed. But I reject the idea that the conduct of terrorists makes it permissible for western forces to negligently kill non combatants. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found that CIA drones have struck rescuers and funerals in Pakistan <http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/>, which do not fit military objectives (as defined by international humanitarian law). The legitimacy of drone targets ought to be a greater burden than it currently seems to be. Otherwise, where lies the difference between our enemies and ourselves? I also reiterate that the use of drones only serves the war hawks. Wars may be part of our global reality, but we forget that they are not the only solution to conflict, and when we wage them, they must be just both in cause and conduct. It is difficult to imagine 'winning' any war where the death of civilians turns subsequent generations against us.

It''s fascinating to see a number of readers of Eureka Street (a Catholic Christian magazine) presume that killing is a legitimate solution to violence. Only complex (and, I believe, erroneous) sophistry allows us to distort Jesus' teaching and make violence seem acceptable. The truth is that followers of Jesus have been offered a radical new way to deal with violence. Oh, that we might try it!

Cameron Gaffney, the Church long ago exercised some complex sophistry, as you put it, and came up with the just war theory. Reject it if you like, but I for one am glad that we do not refrain from using violence when we would otherwise be faced with eradication.

Not every individual or nation out there has peaceful intentions. We have the right to use proportionate means to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

Fatima, it is sad to say, but I think that many of the subsequent generations that you talk of, would hate the West regardless of any civilian deaths. Many of the people in Pakistan and Afghanistan have visceral hatred of the West. Even those that migrate to Western countries still maintain this loathing and rejection of the countries that they move to. They do not seek to integrate but proudly proclaim their contempt and rejection of the culture of the countries that have generously accepted them.

"But I reject the idea that the conduct of terrorists makes it permissible for western forces to negligently kill non combatants." Well, who doesn't? So Fatima's argument has morphed from a rejection of drones per se (it seemed to me) to a rejection of the negligent killing of innocents, which no Catholic of whatever stripe, or decent human being indeed, can ever endorse. I think drones, like the longbowmen at Agincourt, are a brilliant innovation. They can and should be used by just warriors (arguably not Henry V - vide St Joan of Arc) to protect their legitimate interests. I also agree with the Church and Fatima that intentional or negligent killing of innocents is gravely evil. Such killing may well be happening with increased intensity under President Obama. Who would be surprised, even at Eureka Street, given his notorious disrespect for human life at its most vulnerable within the borders of the U.S.? Nevertheless, I wouldn't be automatically placing my faith in the report of the leftist Bureau of Investigative Journalism, notwithstanding its claims to objectivity. Readers who closely scrutinise their report Fatima cites will undoubtedly form their own view on that. To me, it's just a little one-sided.

CAMERON GAFFNEY - I can't see why you are fascinated as to why commentators like MJ use sophistry to justify war. War is an accepted (albeit not acceptable) part of Christian history. The just war theory has taken away the moral sting of the Crusades, The Inquisition and Pedophilia cover-ups.

"The just war theory has taken away the moral sting of the ... Pedophilia cover-ups." Really? Do tell.

If you can justify killing someone in the name of Christendom and western progress, surely it's also for the greater good that Holy Mother Church not be weighed down by petty matters such as the sexual abuse of minors.

It is interesting from all the comments that no one mentions the tragic death of Tariq Aziz.

This drone activity by the American military is another example of American arrogance and insensability. They behaved in the same way in Viet Nam, Iraq, the Middle East and South America. The reason that the Americans behave in this way is that their economy is totally dependent on the military industry: the American military budget exceeds the total of that of all the rest of the world.

I believe that countries such as Australia and America should not have a military presence in Pakistan and Afganistan, but should assist with civilian policing.
People should not take seriously the news and current affairs coverage fron Pakistan and Afganistan by the Australian mainstream media, especially the ABC. I heard from an Australian bloke who was visiting relatives in Peshawar, Pakistan and while there he spoke with his mother in Australia, who told him of reported riots in Peshawar - he laughed and thought she was joking because Peshawar was peaceful at the time.
Australian people should also understand that acts of terrorism and civil disobedience in places such as Pakistan and Afganistan are the result of frustration and desperation because of undemocratic governments and lack of opportunities for acceptable standards of housing, education, health services and job opportunities.

So Aurelius, what would you propose a country should do if it is faced with an aggressive and expansionist power? All means of diplomacy have failed. Do they just sit there and take it? Or what?

Aurelius: "If you can justify killing someone in the name of Christendom and western progress" As I suspected, you don't seem to have the traditional just war theory in mind at all, but a horrific caricature. Do some research, ... I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I accept the just war theory has some validity if it's guidelines are followed strictly, which I doubt happens in modern warfare, but my previous comments are merely making the point that whatever moral framework we cannot ignore the fact that Jesus is a pacifist and his words made that clear. "Do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." It seems inconsistent that the church has adapted its teachings on warfare to offer guidance in changing political/global circumstances, but it hasn't been able to do this with teachings on sexual morality ie premarital sex, divorce, homosexuality and contraception. References in the Scriptures about not taking up arms are a lot clearer and far more frequent than references to sexual matters.

Aurelius, I agree that much that goes on in modern warfare might push the envelope in terms of just war theory. But it's difficult to see Jesus as a straight pacifist, in the sense rejecting all violence and retaliation. He praised the centurion with the sick child for his faith, without rebuking him for being a soldier. He drove the sellers and money changers out of the Temple with a whip. Etc etc. The just war theory is consistently derived from moral principles such as: do not directly or recklessly kill the innocent, which apply to all human beings in history, being part of the natural law, as is the corpus of teaching on sexual morality.

HH, you refer to 'the natural law' as if it's obvious what values you are talking about. Morality based on natural law is about good intentions and taking action in good conscience.