Drone Strikes
However, UAV’s gives the US government the capability of avoiding democracy all together, because there are no actual foot soldiers on the ground. If the United States undermines democracy through drone strikes, then what does the US constitution stand for? Of the Realpolitik persuasion “ethical considerations in war are downright dangerous, as they can prevent a state from taking action conducive to its national interest” (Dalziel, 2014, pg.2). While there are individuals in favor for no moral considerations, the party against argues “that if we make no moral considerations when taking the life of an enemy, we effectively render them vermin that may be exterminated without moral regard” (Dalziel, 2014, pg. 2). The United States must hold itself
…show more content…
to a higher standard, since America is “Land of the Free”, we must be a moral compass and take accountability for its actions. In fact, the majority of society agree with the argument that actions in war should adhere to some code of ethical conduct; this code is Just War Theory (Dalziel, 2014, pg.2). Just War Theory is comprised of two concepts that govern ethically: acceptable resort to war (jus ad bellum) and conduct within war (jus in bello) (Dalziel, 2014, pg.2). The conditions of jus ad bellum state there must be a just causes for war, war must be proportionate to the harm inflicted upon a state, and the war must have legitimate authority (Dalziel, 2014, pg.2). Drone strikes have been the front runner against ‘War on Terror’, but in order for the United States to morally accept drone strikes, it must accept the Just War Theory. For example, if the US is to act as the higher standard, then we must implement new regulations that are considered morally right. A reoccurring fundamental issue is the use of drone strikes in heavily inhabited regions of the world, where foreign citizens are being slaughtered in order for the U.S. to kill several terrorists. The United States employs two methods of drone strikes: ‘personality’ and ‘signature’ strikes; ‘Signature’ strikes, which is a method from the Obama administration faces intense criticism (Dalziel, 2014, pg.2). Signature strikes are not based on evidence, they are based on the possibility of that person being a terrorist. Signature strikes target groups of men who bear certain signatures or have defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity but whose identities are known (Dalziel, 2014, pg.3). Signature strikes sound morally wrong, you cannot base your evidence on physical characteristics and known affiliates. ‘Signature’ drone strikes should not be implemented as a tactic against ‘War on Terror’, and the U.S. should strongly encourage downsizing the amount of drone industry if all strikes are signature strikes. Like stated above, moral justice is in the eye of the beholder; one side might see drone strikes as a strong, ethical form of war, while the other side views it as pure evil. In a speech President Obama he described the US drone campaign in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere as part of “a just war – a war waged as a last resort and in self-defense” (Boyle, 2015, pg.1). Obama goes onto further say “the American drone program is legal and a morally superior alternative to using ground troops” (Boyle, 2015, pg.1). The usefulness of drone warfare might be easier, but is it ethically right? The use of drones is an ethical tactic of war, however the United States is taking the drone program to ‘new heights’ using it in questionable human rights situations. The other nations have an opportunity by incorporating their laws and regulations of drones into international law, and it is the most effective strategy for enforcing human right violation from drones (Wonders, 475 Class Notes). By creating a targeted killing program, and by keeping all relevant information in the shadows, there may come a day when drones are used to regulate social control within the United States, and not just internationally. There have been several attempts to regulate the use of drones both for militarily and commercial use.
Drones are still considered a new technology, and harbor many difficulties when creating and enacting laws. Drones have become problematic with their uses, their targets, and illegal surveillance. Since drone warfare has increased dramatically under Obama’s presidency, we can still see no regulations or laws in sight. The United States created this new technology faster than they could understand and create laws. Therefore, the US may still not understand the destruction and problems that drone strikes cause. For the United States to continue its drone program, the world would be grateful to see regulations be put in place. Since there are several types of drones ranging from commercial use to military use, it can be difficult to create rules that satisfy both types of drones. However, the United States needs separate laws for military drones and commercial drones. Commercial drones are different, because they could be used by police agencies, sports teams, or as a hobby. Civilians are not flying their drones around the world, so they need separate laws compared to the military. The military is using their drones for warfare and surveillance, but we must enact a series of laws: for example no use of military drones surveilling over America. Second, in order for a drone strike to be initiated our intelligence information must be detailed. It is also important that when America is initiating drone strikes, the government must attempt to not kill
citizens. Drone regulations are already starting to take affect across America, with several states enacting personal and commercial regulations for drones domestically. According to legislation, the drones’ threat of privacy is of the utmost concern (Nichols, 2014). When determining laws for effect, other issues were addressed such as: weaponization, restrictions on information drones may gather, data retention limitations, third-party drone use, and the use of private drones (Nichols, 2014). According to Nichols (2014), as of now there are 13 states that have created drone regulations for commercial use around the state. For example, Texas, Utah, Virginia and other states all possess regulations towards drone use. From the article, we notice that there is no universal model, which would be helpful in regulating drones. According to FAA, efforts developing regulations to implement in air space involves sensitive constitutional privacy issues (Matiteyahu, 2015, pg.3). In 2012, President Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act into law, which introduced unmanned aerial vehicles into national airspace (Matiteyahu, 2015, pg.2). This act signed by Obama is supposed to be in effect by 2015. With states enacting legislation for drones, states main priority should be how to regulate drones while also protecting individuals privacy. The amendment which individuals view as to protect us is the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause (Matiteyahu, 2015, pg.5). In US vs Knotts, the court determined that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against surveillance while driving on public roads (Matiteyahu, 2015, pg.5). The case entails that you are allowed to be surveilled while on public roads. The United States has become a surveillance superpower, and has implemented a surveillance assemblage, which is the development of a public-private architecture for surveillance (Wonders, 475 Class Notes). Since drones are combatting the ‘war on terror’, they have gathered massive amounts of intelligence information through surveillance of drones. The world needs a model system, where the laws and regulations of drones are accepted by all. With the increased use of drones around the globe, the consequences of drones on human life increase too. Drones have killed innocent civilians, destroyed infrastructure, and have participated in a global migration. With the drone strikes proceeding in the Middle East, the whole world has seen an increase in migration. Individuals are attempting to escape from poverty, war, and disease. Due to drone strikes, there have many deaths, estimating over 3,000 deaths (Deegan, 2015, pg.253). About 18-26% of those deaths are civilian deaths, however these percentages are only estimations because the United States does not know the real number. First reason for unknown numbers is, drone strikes crop up in remote areas where there is no infrastructure (Deegan, 2015, pg.255). Second, relatives to the individuals quickly remove their bodies and prepare them for a Muslim funeral (Deegan 2015, pg.255). There has been a public outcry all over the media, saying that drone strikes are inflicting more damage than actual help. Drone strikes are amazing pieces of machinery, but they create more controversy than resourceful opportunities. Since drone strikes attack infrastructure, it gives inhabitants of the country to act out criminally, by giving individuals the possibility of raping, pillaging, and killing. Drone strikes have created and inflicted more turmoil than first originally thought. Drone strikes influence individuals to join the fight against America, meaning a relative of that person could die in a strike, making that individual take up arms against the US. More death, rape, pillaging have ravaged the Middle East countryside, and this is where UAV’s mainly fly-over. Due to the emergence of UAV’s we have seen an increase of human consequences in an increase of drone strikes. The US government has grown exponentially since 1776, and roles of government contractors have also increased. Since the Cold war, Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have dramatically decreased the size of its armed forces (Pena, 2014). In order for the US to bridge this gap, the US government began to outsource military tasks to private contractors (Pena, 2014). Transnational Corporations (TNC) roles have increased since the emergence of drones and gathering intelligence information. For example the government is contracting companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and other to participate in the drone program. (Harress, 2014). These companies have acquired several contracts which give the companies the right to build military drones as well as fly drone missions. According to the Air Force, about 168 people are needed to keep a single Predator drone overhead for 24 hours, and the larger Hawk surveillance drone requires 300 people (Pena, 2014).
to a higher standard, since America is “Land of the Free”, we must be a moral compass and take accountability for its actions. In fact, the majority of society agree with the argument that actions in war should adhere to some code of ethical conduct; this code is Just War Theory (Dalziel, 2014, pg.2). Just War Theory is comprised of two concepts that govern ethically: acceptable resort to war (jus ad bellum) and conduct within war (jus in bello) (Dalziel, 2014, pg.2). The conditions of jus ad bellum state there must be a just causes for war, war must be proportionate to the harm inflicted upon a state, and the war must have legitimate authority (Dalziel, 2014, pg.2). Drone strikes have been the front runner against ‘War on Terror’, but in order for the United States to morally accept drone strikes, it must accept the Just War Theory. For example, if the US is to act as the higher standard, then we must implement new regulations that are considered morally right. A reoccurring fundamental issue is the use of drone strikes in heavily inhabited regions of the world, where foreign citizens are being slaughtered in order for the U.S. to kill several terrorists. The United States employs two methods of drone strikes: ‘personality’ and ‘signature’ strikes; ‘Signature’ strikes, which is a method from the Obama administration faces intense criticism (Dalziel, 2014, pg.2). Signature strikes are not based on evidence, they are based on the possibility of that person being a terrorist. Signature strikes target groups of men who bear certain signatures or have defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity but whose identities are known (Dalziel, 2014, pg.3). Signature strikes sound morally wrong, you cannot base your evidence on physical characteristics and known affiliates. ‘Signature’ drone strikes should not be implemented as a tactic against ‘War on Terror’, and the U.S. should strongly encourage downsizing the amount of drone industry if all strikes are signature strikes. Like stated above, moral justice is in the eye of the beholder; one side might see drone strikes as a strong, ethical form of war, while the other side views it as pure evil. In a speech President Obama he described the US drone campaign in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere as part of “a just war – a war waged as a last resort and in self-defense” (Boyle, 2015, pg.1). Obama goes onto further say “the American drone program is legal and a morally superior alternative to using ground troops” (Boyle, 2015, pg.1). The usefulness of drone warfare might be easier, but is it ethically right? The use of drones is an ethical tactic of war, however the United States is taking the drone program to ‘new heights’ using it in questionable human rights situations. The other nations have an opportunity by incorporating their laws and regulations of drones into international law, and it is the most effective strategy for enforcing human right violation from drones (Wonders, 475 Class Notes). By creating a targeted killing program, and by keeping all relevant information in the shadows, there may come a day when drones are used to regulate social control within the United States, and not just internationally. There have been several attempts to regulate the use of drones both for militarily and commercial use.
Drones are still considered a new technology, and harbor many difficulties when creating and enacting laws. Drones have become problematic with their uses, their targets, and illegal surveillance. Since drone warfare has increased dramatically under Obama’s presidency, we can still see no regulations or laws in sight. The United States created this new technology faster than they could understand and create laws. Therefore, the US may still not understand the destruction and problems that drone strikes cause. For the United States to continue its drone program, the world would be grateful to see regulations be put in place. Since there are several types of drones ranging from commercial use to military use, it can be difficult to create rules that satisfy both types of drones. However, the United States needs separate laws for military drones and commercial drones. Commercial drones are different, because they could be used by police agencies, sports teams, or as a hobby. Civilians are not flying their drones around the world, so they need separate laws compared to the military. The military is using their drones for warfare and surveillance, but we must enact a series of laws: for example no use of military drones surveilling over America. Second, in order for a drone strike to be initiated our intelligence information must be detailed. It is also important that when America is initiating drone strikes, the government must attempt to not kill
citizens. Drone regulations are already starting to take affect across America, with several states enacting personal and commercial regulations for drones domestically. According to legislation, the drones’ threat of privacy is of the utmost concern (Nichols, 2014). When determining laws for effect, other issues were addressed such as: weaponization, restrictions on information drones may gather, data retention limitations, third-party drone use, and the use of private drones (Nichols, 2014). According to Nichols (2014), as of now there are 13 states that have created drone regulations for commercial use around the state. For example, Texas, Utah, Virginia and other states all possess regulations towards drone use. From the article, we notice that there is no universal model, which would be helpful in regulating drones. According to FAA, efforts developing regulations to implement in air space involves sensitive constitutional privacy issues (Matiteyahu, 2015, pg.3). In 2012, President Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act into law, which introduced unmanned aerial vehicles into national airspace (Matiteyahu, 2015, pg.2). This act signed by Obama is supposed to be in effect by 2015. With states enacting legislation for drones, states main priority should be how to regulate drones while also protecting individuals privacy. The amendment which individuals view as to protect us is the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause (Matiteyahu, 2015, pg.5). In US vs Knotts, the court determined that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against surveillance while driving on public roads (Matiteyahu, 2015, pg.5). The case entails that you are allowed to be surveilled while on public roads. The United States has become a surveillance superpower, and has implemented a surveillance assemblage, which is the development of a public-private architecture for surveillance (Wonders, 475 Class Notes). Since drones are combatting the ‘war on terror’, they have gathered massive amounts of intelligence information through surveillance of drones. The world needs a model system, where the laws and regulations of drones are accepted by all. With the increased use of drones around the globe, the consequences of drones on human life increase too. Drones have killed innocent civilians, destroyed infrastructure, and have participated in a global migration. With the drone strikes proceeding in the Middle East, the whole world has seen an increase in migration. Individuals are attempting to escape from poverty, war, and disease. Due to drone strikes, there have many deaths, estimating over 3,000 deaths (Deegan, 2015, pg.253). About 18-26% of those deaths are civilian deaths, however these percentages are only estimations because the United States does not know the real number. First reason for unknown numbers is, drone strikes crop up in remote areas where there is no infrastructure (Deegan, 2015, pg.255). Second, relatives to the individuals quickly remove their bodies and prepare them for a Muslim funeral (Deegan 2015, pg.255). There has been a public outcry all over the media, saying that drone strikes are inflicting more damage than actual help. Drone strikes are amazing pieces of machinery, but they create more controversy than resourceful opportunities. Since drone strikes attack infrastructure, it gives inhabitants of the country to act out criminally, by giving individuals the possibility of raping, pillaging, and killing. Drone strikes have created and inflicted more turmoil than first originally thought. Drone strikes influence individuals to join the fight against America, meaning a relative of that person could die in a strike, making that individual take up arms against the US. More death, rape, pillaging have ravaged the Middle East countryside, and this is where UAV’s mainly fly-over. Due to the emergence of UAV’s we have seen an increase of human consequences in an increase of drone strikes. The US government has grown exponentially since 1776, and roles of government contractors have also increased. Since the Cold war, Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have dramatically decreased the size of its armed forces (Pena, 2014). In order for the US to bridge this gap, the US government began to outsource military tasks to private contractors (Pena, 2014). Transnational Corporations (TNC) roles have increased since the emergence of drones and gathering intelligence information. For example the government is contracting companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and other to participate in the drone program. (Harress, 2014). These companies have acquired several contracts which give the companies the right to build military drones as well as fly drone missions. According to the Air Force, about 168 people are needed to keep a single Predator drone overhead for 24 hours, and the larger Hawk surveillance drone requires 300 people (Pena, 2014).