Benjamin Wittes and Conor Friedersdorf debate drone use

The drone is just a tool used to do something that people have been doing for a really long time, Benjamin Wittes said in a debate about drones before an audience of more than 500 in Cannon Memorial Chapel last Wednesday night.

"What weapon would you be living under otherwise?" he asked.

Wittes argued first for drone use. A drone is like every other weapon and is designed to put greater distance between the attacker and victim. In that sense it is no different than a stick, gun or missile, he said.

Yet some people see drones as completely different, as though they are distinct from air strikes and warfare, he said. If people see the other methods used in war as good and legal, then drones are good and legal, he said. The drone is just the latest tactic, he said.

Wittes said people were confused. When they say they are not okay with drone use, they mean that they don't believe in targeted killing or the use of force on the territory of non-consenting countries, he said.

If people accept there is a war and accept targeted killings, then they should accept drones, he said. People believe that there are better, cheaper and safer options, but there aren't, he said. There are casualties of civilians; the technology is not perfect, he said.

A common argument against drone use is that it is dishonorable not putting your own people at risk, but warfare is not a matter of honor, Wittes said. "I believe in humanitarian protection and killing people who are lawful enemies," he said.

Conor Friedersdorf, who rarely took his eyes off his written speech, argued against drone usage. He said drones bring fear to innocent people, and that the issue has to do with basic human rights. Drones hover constantly over villages creating anxiety, sleeping problems and mistrust, he said.

Drones are also a recipe for abuse, Friedersdorf said. Lethal acts occur that wouldn't have happened in a world without drones, he said. Drones are not ethical, he said.

After killing innocent civilians, the government responds by saying it was an accident and doesn't compensate, "like a hit-and-run driver," he said.

The government also uses the double-tap drone method where it fires at the targeted person and then fires again at the rescuers, Friedersdorf said. This prevents people from coming to help innocent, injured people.

Friedersdorf said terrorist attacks were rare. The continual usage of drones is not a proportional response to the threat Americans face, he said. There is no hard evidence that Americans are safer with drone usage. If anything, it is creating more terrorists than it is killing. Drone usage fuels anti-Americanism, he said.

If America legitimizes drone usage, it is legitimized for everyone, he said. The government is not credible and Americans should question the drone policy because it is not transparent enough, he said.

Wittes said Friedersdorf's argument wasn't specifically about drones. It was just an objection to the war on terror and the way President Barack Obama is dealing with it, he said. "Does the absence of drones often necessitate much greater, much more damaging use of force?" Wittes asked.

Friedersdorf said the psychology of humans made people more likely to overuse drones and the secrecy of it made people think they can get away with it more than something like nuclear warfare. Friedersdorf asked, "If the cost of war goes down and other countries can go to war much more easily, what does that mean for the planet?"

"I thought it was interesting to hear different opinions, but it sometimes did not pertain to drones exclusively," said Taylor Robinson, a University of Richmond freshman.

John Paul Jones, a professor at University of Richmond School of Law, moderated the debate, titled "Distant Death: A Debate on Drones," and introduced it with the help of biology professor Peter Smallwood.

The debate was co-sponsored by the School of Arts and Sciences, the World Affairs Council of Greater Richmond, the Jepson School of Leadership Studies, the School of Professional and Continuing Studies, the Philosophy, Politics, Economics and Law Program (PPEL), the Office of International Education and the law school.

Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic magazine. He used to work for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group. He is also the founding editor of The Best Journalism. He focuses on politics and national affairs and lives in Venice, Calif.

Wittes has written several books including "Detention and Denial: The Case for Candor after Guantanamo" and "Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror." He has also edited many books. He is a senior fellow in governance studies at The Brookings Institution.

Wittes co-founded and is editor-in-chief of Lawfare blog. He is also a member of the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law. He works on issues related to American law, national security, the war on terrorism and more.

Contact reporter Ariana McFarland at ariana.mcfarland@richmond.edu