Article content continued

In 2014, the administration released a memorandum justifying its attack on an American-born terrorist, but only after being compelled to do so by a court. It has resisted disclosure of other documents. Groups such as Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Association have called on the government to adopt a more “transparent and accountable approach” to its operations.

There are lessons here for Canada. The government should be transparent about drones’ benefits and risks, and should set clear rules of engagement and accountability to govern their use.

Drones’ benefits are considerable. Industry experts say they’re already being used for activities that would be far riskier and less effective if carried out by humans. Search and rescue operations and forest fire monitoring are but two examples of ways in which they’re used.

Drones also present risks, although it’s important to be clear about what those are. The fact that drones may be capable of killing is not, of itself, cause for concern. Military planes, after all, have been armed for decades. If one accepts that lethal force is necessary in warfare, there is no moral or legal distinction between using drones (where the operator is miles away) or a bomber (where the pilot is in the cockpit) to strike a target. Indeed, of the two, drones would seem the more favourable choice, as their greater precision reduces the likelihood of collateral damage.