The administration acknowledged Wednesday targeting American citizens in drone strikes, a day before a speech during which President Obama is expected to provide his first detailed justification for the targeted killing program run by the C.I.A. and the Pentagon. Readers were invited to ask the national security reporting team of The New York Times questions about drones, via nytimes.com and Twitter, and they responded to selected questions below, ahead of Mr. Obama's speech at 2 p.m. on Thursday. (Note: That's half an hour later than originally scheduled.)
Q.
Where have drones been deployed under the Obama administration? To what extent did the Bush administration use drones?
Which administration officials, current or former, have expressed skepticism about drone strikes? How many prominent military personnel have done so? -Eric Adamcik
A.
Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, the Obama administration has used armed drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. There has been a significant escalation of drone strikes under Mr. Obama compared with President George W. Bush, although it was during the final months of the Bush administration when the surge in drone strikes in Pakistan began. -MARK MAZZETTI
Q.
Does President Obama, and those that advise him on the use of drones, have any doubts at all that the program is not working, considering the Al Qaeda resurgence in Iraq, Syria, and Africa? -Ed
A.
Most counterterrorism analysts would argue that the upheavals in these countries, and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa, are more the result of the tumult unleashed by Arab Spring than the efficacy of the drone program. But as The Times reported Tuesday, some former senior Bush and Obama administration security officials have expressed concern that the short-term gains of drone strikes in eliminating specific militants in countries like Pakistan and Yemen may be outweighed by long-term strategic costs.
“We're seeing that blowback,†Gen. James E. Cartwright, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in March. “If you're trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how precise you are, you're going to upset people even if they're not targeted.†-ERIC SCHMITT
Q.
What are we doing to make drone strikes more effective and accurate in order to minimize or eliminate civilian casualties? -George
A.
The drones themselves are fairly accurate. In other words, they hit what they are trying to hit. But a drone strike is only as good as the intelligence supporting it. If the intelligence leading to a drone strike is bad, then there is a greater chance that a drone strike will kill civilians, or kill someone who posed no threat to the United States. There have also been cases of the C.I.A. and Pentagon carrying out drone strikes on individuals after being fed intelligence by that person's rivals. -MARK MAZZETTI
A.
The actual procedures are classified, so it is very difficult to know exactly what takes place before a drone strike is carried out. One particularly controversial aspect of the program is the use of “signature strikes†- when the C.I.A. carries out the strike not based on intelligence about a specific individual but on “patterns of activity†of people at a compound or suspected training camp. Obviously, the procedures for these types of strikes are different than for the first category. -MARK MAZZETTI
Q.
How many people have been killed in signature strikes? -David Keppel
A.
Like so much about the drone program, the toll of the strikes is not made public. But signature strikes - in which suspected but unidentified militants are targeted because they are in an extremist-controlled area and are carrying arms or making bombs - have been responsible for some of the largest death tolls in the drone program. It is safe to say that hundreds of men have been killed in Pakistan by signature strikes. -SCOTT SHANE
Q.
Has there been a serious discussion within the administration and national security apparatus of a possible permanent judicial framework for approving drone strikes - whether a military tribunal or a secret panel of judges or anything else? If so, how close is this to coming to fruition? -Brooke
A.
There has been a good deal of talk in recent months about the possibility of judicial review before drone strikes, something along the lines of the Foreign International Surveillance Court, which approved Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants. But it does not appear that this idea is gaining much traction. Besides the practical questions - could judges review intelligence information and issue a judgment on a very short timeline?- other questions have been raised about the constitutionality of such a “drone court.†-MARK MAZZETTI
A.
Like most counterterrorism operations, the strike in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, who had not been accused of terrorism and was not the intended target, remains classified and cloaked in secrecy. It is unknown whether an investigation was done of the errant strike or whether anyone was reprimanded or otherwise held accountable. American officials speaking anonymously have said only that the strike was intended to kill an Egyptian militant who appears not to have been present. -SCOTT SHANE
Q.
If we didn't use drones, wouldn't we just revert back to regular planes with human pilots? If so, I see the use of drones to be saving American lives. -Stan Brodsky
A.
The United States might revert to manned aircraft, but more likely it would weigh the costs of losing an aircraft and its crew against the importance of the target. As a result, some targets might not be struck. Or the United States might put more pressure on the local government to carry out a raid or arrests, possibly with the help of American logistical, intelligence and operational support. If the target was important enough â€" like Osama bin Laden â€" the United States would still risk aircraft and their crews, and possibly commandos to conduct the mission. -ERIC SCHMITT
A.
Maybe. President Obama in February announced that about 100 American soldiers had been sent to Niger in West Africa, just north of Nigeria, to help set up a new base from which unarmed Predator aircraft would conduct surveillance in the region. The Predators in Niger are providing information to support the French-led operation in neighboring Mali that in January drove fighters affiliated with the local Qaeda affiliate and other Islamic extremists out of a desert refuge the size of Texas in the northern part of Mali. Nigeria has resisted unspecified offers of Pentagon assistance to help its fight against Boko Haram, but so far, drone flights are not on the table. Nigeria has carried out air and ground assaults against suspected Boko Haram bases at the country's northeastern edge.
Q.
How pervasive is domestic drone use in the U.S.A.? Follow up: Are there signs that state and local police will gain access to drone technology? -Ken
A.
Yes, drones are probably coming to a sheriff's department near you. Dozens of police forces and sheriff's offices have petitioned the government to fly drones in domestic airspace, according to a list compiled by the Federal Aviation Administration. But it's not just the sheriff's office of Orange County, Fla., and the Seattle Police Department - a number of universities such as Pennsylvania State and Kansas State have also applied for permission to fly drones.
But, before Senator Rand Paul starts planning another filibuster, it is important to note that these are applications for unarmed drones, not the armed kind. Still, I don't think it's far-fetched that police forces could be carrying out armed drone strikes in the not-too-distant future. Police forces give snipers permission to kill in hostage situations - would there be a big difference if they started using drones? -MARK MAZZETTI
A.
In fact, drones are already being used for many purposes other than surveillance or killing, and the list is growing every day. Farmers use drones to inspect their fields, power companies to examine their lines and disaster responders to assess damage. For the moment, newspaper and pizza delivery remain on the drawing board, but many experts believe that the civilian purposes of drones will soon eclipse their military use. -SCOTT SHANE
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
