Agreed. The real problem is not on the existence of this technology (that was inevitable) but the misuse of it as other's pointed out. In a lot of countries (esp USA), civilians are effectively not allowed to put any limitations or guidelines on how the military or intelligence organizations use new technology. This is the actually alarming story.
If a piece of technology allows the military to capture instead of kill a supposed terrorist, will they do so? What is legally binding them to?
I think this is a really important discussion, and there are a lot of different aspects, making a simple solution hard. If we always attempt to capture instead of kill terrorists, and then we have to detain them, does that cause more or less terrorists in the future? Or do we capture, put on trial, and possibly execute (and if so, what happens if we pass legislation to ban executions). Or, as we generally do now, do we just kill known terrorists?
After you step beyond what's humane for the person, the question of what's humane for society looms (and at that point, we have to consider who's society we are talking about). It's obviously more humane for the individual if we capture instead of kill outright, but if that's noticeably worse for society through negative externalities (I'm not trying to assume, just posing the question), then is it better or worse?
> (esp USA), civilians are effectively not allowed to put any limitations or guidelines on how the military or intelligence organizations use new technology
You do, of course, realize that the President is a civilian? And as Commander-in-Chief he absolutely does have the ability to put limitations or guidelines on how those groups use their equipment. And let's not forget congress, which is comprised entirely of civilians and could financially neuter military and intelligence programs if desired.
There are plenty of countries where there is no civilian oversight for the military, but the US is not one of them.
> If a piece of technology allows the military to capture instead of kill a supposed terrorist, will they do so? What is legally binding them to?
That's a good question. I think the preference would always be to capture if there is a possibility of gaining intelligence from the captive. If you were interested in bargaining with adversaries, it would be wise to capture at least some of them (prisoner exchanges, that sort of thing). However, if the intelligence gain would be minimal and you already have a stable of bargaining chips, it might be worth more to have a guarantee that this particular terrorist won't be in the fight any longer.
As to what's legally binding, the 1907 Hague Convention says that it is forbidden "to declare that no quarter will be given." This would suggest that surrenders from any lawful combatant would have to be accepted. To take the current example, I do not think ISIL fighters would be considered "lawful combatants" primarily because they do not respect the international laws.
As a creator of this kind of technology, handing it over to agencies that are constantly battling all levels of oversight seems sketchy to me. I would understand why some people would want to ban this technology outright as an overreaction. Instead, maybe we should try and enforce controlled civilian oversight.
But yes, I am not expert on the legalities of oversight or the treatment of captured terrorists
I guess nobody's really an expert on that. I guess there's some precedence going back to the golden age of piracy, but then again most of those policies would have predated many instances of international law. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a dozen JAGs working out exactly what the US's policies should be right this instant (if they haven't already).
If a piece of technology allows the military to capture instead of kill a supposed terrorist, will they do so? What is legally binding them to?