

A Short History of the Executioner - benbreen
http://theappendix.net/blog/2014/6/a-short-history-of-the-executioner

======
dneronique
> Included in the basses oeuvres was a management role over other social
> pariahs, from whom the executioner could levy a tax, suggesting that he was
> a sort of sovereign of the underworld.

I am so ready for this video game.

------
frenchman_in_ny
This seems fairly insensitive given recent news.

------
rdtsc
And here is the modern version:

[http://defense-update.com/products/u/UCS.htm](http://defense-
update.com/products/u/UCS.htm)

With nice rugged panels and controls. Comfy chairs. Some places require
wearing a full flight suit. To make the job more official, of course.

Exacting King's (i.e. Obama's) merciful justice in all corners of the earth by
day, leaving from Langley, VA to pick up kids from soccer in the evening.

~~~
roghummal
The way we use missiles and bombs aren't 'execution'. Maybe we kill the person
we're trying to kill, maybe we don't kill anyone, and maybe we kill someone we
didn't want to kill. We try to control the odds but there are no guarantees.
Intel turns to orders turns to BOOMs.

The men blowing things up by remote control aren't executioners. They lack
something the executioner has; They don't see the people they kill.

Your comment doesn't belong here. This article is about executioners. The men
sitting in those comfy chairs aren't executioners.

~~~
rdtsc
> Intel turns to orders turns to BOOMs.

Ok. Mock trial turns to conviction turns to execution. What is the qualitative
difference?

> We try to control the odds?

Failed to see how we fundamentally control the odds better than some king's
court.

> The men blowing things up by remote control aren't executioners. They lack
> something the executioner has; They don't see the people they kill.

Well maybe they should see the people they kill.

> Your comment doesn't belong here. This article is about executioners. The
> men sitting in those comfy chairs aren't executioners.

So far none of your descriptions failed to differentiate them from
executioners. What they are then if not executioners?

~~~
beloch
In a mock trial and execution, the victim can at least be clearly identified.
A drone's eye view typically does not allow it's target to be positively
identified by facial recognition. To make matters worse, the U.S. has admitted
that they assume any adult males in the vicinity of someone they think is a
terrorist are terrorists as well, unless evidence proves them innocent.

Executioners are precise. Drones are indiscriminate killers. Executioners work
within the law. Drones work outside of it. What kind of executioner would
willingly kill dozens of unidentified innocents to get at one possible
suspect? Drones fill a role closer to that of a death squad than an
executioner.

~~~
JackFr
But many drone strikes are targeting specific individuals. They don't have
surgical precision, but they are not indiscriminate.

~~~
beloch
My point was that killing someone with a drone isn't even as precise as
walking up to somebody on the street and unloading a shotgun in their face.
All the operator sees is a few human shaped pixels. He has to rely on other
sources of intelligence to infer that the target is who he thinks he is. It's
like the state executing people by planting bombs in their offices that have
simple time-delay fuses. When 4:30 pm Friday rolls around, the intended target
might be in his office, or he might be out golfing. Somebody else entirely
might wind up being there and the bomb is certain to take out more than one
office to boot. Friday might even be bring your daughter to work day.

