Opinion

Ethical dilemma drones on

The Issue: Moral questions concerning the Obama administration’s use of drones to kill terrorists.

***

I find myself rejecting the idea that killing one’s murderous enemies by drone in our battle against Islamist terror, whether American citizens or not, will somehow render our society unfit for polite folk (“Drone Cold Truth,” Ralph Peters, PostOpinion, Jan. 7).

Attorney General Eric Holder’s endorsement in this arena is welcome, even though it has occasioned some justifiable distress among opinion writers and human-rights advocates.

There are, after all, legitimate questions of secrecy, due process and legal justification that the Obama administration should address.

While wars may be too important to be left exclusively to generals, they are certainly too important to be vetted exclusively by legal eagles, writers or moral philosophers unaware of the fact that drone attacks often limit civilian deaths when compared with conventional weaponry applied to the same mission. Paul Bloustein

Cincinnati

The left’s redefining of moral superiority, and its reluctance to be moral in view of overwhelming evidence that drones save lives of both the innocent and US servicemembers, redefines “having it both ways.”

This same morally superior element looks the other way at abortion, or at the lack of women’s rights in countries around the world.

This permeates the political and moral process necessary for a civilized nation. Having it both ways never works.

Theodore Miraldi

The Bronx