It's a commentary. Commentaries are supposed to be one-sided.
The Guardian commentary appeals to emotion while making it clear where its sympathies lie. That is perfectly acceptable and proper for a commentary.
It's also quite relevant to the debate to bring emotion into it. You hinted at it when you asked whether "we're carrying out a lot more sorties than we did prior," but you only mentioned the military cost of it.
A key issue that the commentary highlights -- and perhaps the HN reactions to it as well -- is that we may be flying more drone sorties because the American populace is more comfortable with them.
It's a variant the old "smart bomb" argument from Desert Storm. If the U.S.'s only option was to carpet bomb Baghdad, then there probably would be more domestic opposition to the war and it may not even have happened. But the warmongers argued that we have smarter, more precise weaponry, which perhaps moderated opposition, leading to more horror and death.
Thus highlighting the actual horrors that drones inflict, and the widespread terror they instill in an entire population who live in constant fear they could be annihilated at any moment, is a very valid contribution to the debate.
Furthermore, the main point of the commentary is that we, the people supporting the politicians sanctioning these drone policies, should be asking questions. The appeal may be emotional, but demanding more transparency so that that we can make informed decisions on whether to support these programs is not just reasonable, but the right thing to do.
Between you and the "let's put ourselves in their shoes" guy, I think I've now changed my view about the use of drones.
Prior to today, I was on board with the "smart bomb" argument. I think people arguing against the use of drones really need to focus on how they're worse than traditional warfare, otherwise people who hold the views I held will just tune out.
The Guardian commentary appeals to emotion while making it clear where its sympathies lie. That is perfectly acceptable and proper for a commentary.
It's also quite relevant to the debate to bring emotion into it. You hinted at it when you asked whether "we're carrying out a lot more sorties than we did prior," but you only mentioned the military cost of it.
A key issue that the commentary highlights -- and perhaps the HN reactions to it as well -- is that we may be flying more drone sorties because the American populace is more comfortable with them.
It's a variant the old "smart bomb" argument from Desert Storm. If the U.S.'s only option was to carpet bomb Baghdad, then there probably would be more domestic opposition to the war and it may not even have happened. But the warmongers argued that we have smarter, more precise weaponry, which perhaps moderated opposition, leading to more horror and death.
Thus highlighting the actual horrors that drones inflict, and the widespread terror they instill in an entire population who live in constant fear they could be annihilated at any moment, is a very valid contribution to the debate.