Letters: Drones, pro and con

Re “She’s on the front lines in drone battle,” Oct. 9

Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell and political activist Imran Khan contend that the U.S. strategy of covert targeted drone strikes against militants outside Afghanistan is illegal under international law.

The U.S. finds itself at war against a stateless band of Islamic militants who kill innocent civilians with explosives and launch attacks against Western embassies and civilian targets outside the “lawful” war zone. Do O’Connell and Khan really believe that international law only applies to the U.S.?

Any law that says it is illegal for the U.S. to target and kill militants in Pakistan with drones, while failing to address the militants in Pakistan who kill U.S. military personal and innocent civilians with bombs, is a law that should not only be broken but banished.

Brady Cuthbert

Irvine

Re “Anti-drone caravan blocked,” Oct. 8

Hooray for the marchers, both American and Pakistani, protesting the U.S drone attacks in South Waziristan. These attacks are escalating the Taliban insurgency and pitting the Pakistani people against us.

How would we like it if a powerful nation — say, Russia or China — launched drone attacks on U.S. soil to neutralize a group of militants? What would we do if hundreds of our own citizens were killed by these attacks?

President Obama should know better. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

Mike Rustigan

Laguna Beach

ALSO:

Letters: Cash for cans in California

Letters: The ‘sheriff’ who ruled L.A.

Letters: A milleniums-long battle of the sexes