The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the law

fair podcast become a material supporter of law fair at patreon.com slash law

fair. That's patreon.com slash law fair. Also check out law fair's other podcast

offerings, rational security, chatter, law fair no bull and the aftermath.

The ability to hover in one place for hours or even days does permit deliberation and discrimination.

But that same constant hovering imposes a cost on many thousands of innocents.

Because drones don't just affect their targets actual and aborted, they affect whole

communities that live underneath them. And the people who live in communities where

drone tubber overhead report severe anxiety, terrified children, mental health problems,

troublesleeping, paranoia, and after drone strikes occur pervasive mistrust as people

wonder if a local helped call down the health fire missile.

I'm Rithika Singh and this is the law fair podcast February 15, 2014.

That was Connor Frieder's door if you just heard, a well known outspoken critic of the

program and a writer at the Atlantic. Last November, the University of Richmond invited

Ben and Connor to participate in an Oxford style debate on the ethics of drone warfare.

I edited the event from purposes of brevity, leaving out the question and answer section

with the audience at the end, but keeping Ben and Connor's opening statements and their

responses to each other. While the debate touched on the legal issues behind targeted

killing, it was really about the many implications, both positive and negative,

two-estrone policy. These implications range from the precedent the United

States sets in the international community to the psychological effects of drones.

As America winds down the war in Afghanistan this year, Al-Qaeda continues to morph

...