back
12 comments
> Included in the basses oeuvres was a management role over other social pariahs, from whom the executioner could levy a tax, suggesting that he was a sort of sovereign of the underworld.

I am so ready for this video game.

This seems fairly insensitive given recent news.
And here is the modern version:

http://defense-update.com/products/u/UCS.htm

With nice rugged panels and controls. Comfy chairs. Some places require wearing a full flight suit. To make the job more official, of course.

Exacting King's (i.e. Obama's) merciful justice in all corners of the earth by day, leaving from Langley, VA to pick up kids from soccer in the evening.

The way we use missiles and bombs aren't 'execution'. Maybe we kill the person we're trying to kill, maybe we don't kill anyone, and maybe we kill someone we didn't want to kill. We try to control the odds but there are no guarantees. Intel turns to orders turns to BOOMs.

The men blowing things up by remote control aren't executioners. They lack something the executioner has; They don't see the people they kill.

Your comment doesn't belong here. This article is about executioners. The men sitting in those comfy chairs aren't executioners.

> Intel turns to orders turns to BOOMs.

Ok. Mock trial turns to conviction turns to execution. What is the qualitative difference?

> We try to control the odds?

Failed to see how we fundamentally control the odds better than some king's court.

> The men blowing things up by remote control aren't executioners. They lack something the executioner has; They don't see the people they kill.

Well maybe they should see the people they kill.

> Your comment doesn't belong here. This article is about executioners. The men sitting in those comfy chairs aren't executioners.

So far none of your descriptions failed to differentiate them from executioners. What they are then if not executioners?

In a mock trial and execution, the victim can at least be clearly identified. A drone's eye view typically does not allow it's target to be positively identified by facial recognition. To make matters worse, the U.S. has admitted that they assume any adult males in the vicinity of someone they think is a terrorist are terrorists as well, unless evidence proves them innocent.

Executioners are precise. Drones are indiscriminate killers. Executioners work within the law. Drones work outside of it. What kind of executioner would willingly kill dozens of unidentified innocents to get at one possible suspect? Drones fill a role closer to that of a death squad than an executioner.

> Executioners work within the law. Drones work outside of it.

Drone pilots are certainly within the law of their home country.

But many drone strikes are targeting specific individuals. They don't have surgical precision, but they are not indiscriminate.
My point was that killing someone with a drone isn't even as precise as walking up to somebody on the street and unloading a shotgun in their face. All the operator sees is a few human shaped pixels. He has to rely on other sources of intelligence to infer that the target is who he thinks he is. It's like the state executing people by planting bombs in their offices that have simple time-delay fuses. When 4:30 pm Friday rolls around, the intended target might be in his office, or he might be out golfing. Somebody else entirely might wind up being there and the bomb is certain to take out more than one office to boot. Friday might even be bring your daughter to work day.
A 'mock trial' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_trial is not the same as a 'show trial' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trial, and in general targets of US drones have not participated in either.

Regardless, many of the drone strikes are executions, specifically extra-judicial executions. When the President signs off on a list of names of individuals to be killed, it seems an awful lot like an extra-judicial execution warrant.

Yes, but as we all know, un-Americans don't have any rights. /sarcasm
> They don't see the people they kill.

You have no idea what you're talking about.