I am not sure that I have a full opinion here, but it's one of those below-the-radar topics that seems to really matter. Attached is an article by The Economist that answers some of the questions that the article you posted raises, but certainly does not strike at the heart of all of them.

There is no question that Obama has launched more bomb strikes than Bush - this article says that he has launched them at roughly ten times the rate that Bush did, and I have read that in other sources as well. The question is why.

Some cynics that I have read say that Obama doesn't want to have to deal with his own party on issues like Guantanamo and what to do with prisoners once they are caught, so he simply prefers to kill them, whereas Bush did not. I honestly don't know whether that's true, and if it is, what to think of it. It does, strangely, seem to fall nicely against the backdrop of his re-appointment of Gates when he took office; put another way, that he is in reality a lot more hawkish than he would like his party to understand.

To be fair, though, there certainly are more generous and plausible explanations: that the drone attacks are more efficient, effective, or inexpensive than other methods. Or that our technology has progressed in some way that makes them more preferable now. Or that Obama, being more serious than Bush about the necessity of victory in Afghanistan, has doubled down.

Good call out. I would like to understand this better.

I think this question should be directed to Pakistan, not New Zealand. Drones are contentious. They protect the lives of the countrymen for whom they fly, but are too capable of indiscriminate harm in my opinion, which in turn is just as likely to breed more people who are anti-drone, and therefore anti-USA than anything.

As much as it breached Pakistani sovereignty, the attack on the bin Laden compound was a much smarter way to fight a war. Quick, precise, and with minimal collateral, whereas drones just can't achieve this. Maybe in the future, but at the moment, they cannot be as precise a weapon as a HUMAN special ops team.

Seattle seems to be set on drones right here! At least some protest is happening:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019526462_drones26m.html

Great question Mali. My assumption is that these drone strikes are extremely accurate and when possible coordinated with eyes-on on the ground. That they not only save US troops lives in combat, but save a huge about of other lives in country and around the world by eliminating real and lethal threats to US and world peace. Terrorist have brought this type of warfare to the forefront and drones our one of our best tools to fight in this arena. So those are my impressions as a US citizen who gets his information from mostly mainline news sources. Again, I'd like to say I think this is an important question and I would like to come to a better understanding of all the facts. Marc

Thank you, David, for the local news on drones and the other perspectives here. I have heard the efficiency, accuracy and low-cost arguments but nothing can outweigh the human rights violations drones impose. Our right to privacy and moral integrity is the first that comes to mind with local state police use. It goes directly against constitutional search and seizure. It goes against the requirement of a search warrant before being under surveillance.

But more devasting is what we are doing overseas in warfare-targeting people who may not be terrorists, and who also are American citizens such as the Virginia teenager who was attacked last year by a drone. These are people who have never been accused of a crime, who are not on the battlefield, who are in their home, people living in terror: terrorism. Can we imagine a future where Americans are targeted here at home with no evidence, with no right to be presumed innocent?

Eric Holder has said that Al Qaeda members “do not behave like a traditional military – wearing uniforms, carrying arms openly, or massing forces in preparation for an attack” in his justification for targeted drone killing. Glenn Greenwald's response is,"That’s why applying traditional war doctrine to accused Terrorists (who are not found on a battlefield but in their cars, their homes, at work, etc.) is so inappropriate, and why judicial review is so urgent: because the risk of false accusations is so much higher than it is when capturing uniformed soldiers on an actual battlefield."

So, in responce to accuracy and efficiency, how do we know that those being killed are terrorists?

Another concern is the pyschological ramifications of killing using a joy stick or a button safe in the comforts of your own American city. The sterilization and emotional disconnection fosters dehumanizating the reality of war. How can it not impact one's ability to fully comprehend his/her choices and actions? How can it not impact how one pyschologically repairs and rehabilitates?

I hope this conversation continues.