Drones Vs
Courtney Thompson
Drones v. International Law
Introduction
There are many debates on the legal and moral aspect of drone targeted killings. While there are many reasons why it is morally wrong, this paper will discuss the legality of drone targeted killings. In a country where you can go to jail for the remainder of your life for murdering someone, this is one of the most debated topics. There is disagreement about whether suspected terrorists should be considered combatants and subjected to being killed or whether they should be considered civilians protected by international humanitarian law. People are also concerned about the many innocent bystanders often killed or injured by such attacks. In this paper, we will explore the legal aspect of drone targeted killings. Showing what makes it legal, how they go about the process of targeting suspected terrorists, and concluding with criticisms.
History
For a long time, States were eliminating enemies through targeted killings. It wasn’t until the early 2000’s that states openly said they were in involved in targeted killings. Only the United States and Israel have openly admitted the use of drone targeted killings. “The United States unofficially adopted targeted killing as a counterterrorism tactic in 2001 in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. In the first five years after 9/11, the United States conducted more than a dozen targeted killings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen.” 1 Under the Obama Administration that number has grown to more than a hundred. All they have to do is classify the conflict a certain way and it’s considered lawful.
The U.S. Department of Justice decided to put out stipulations to help with classification, on February 13 a White Paper was leaked and it set forth “the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational
Drones v. International Law
Introduction
There are many debates on the legal and moral aspect of drone targeted killings. While there are many reasons why it is morally wrong, this paper will discuss the legality of drone targeted killings. In a country where you can go to jail for the remainder of your life for murdering someone, this is one of the most debated topics. There is disagreement about whether suspected terrorists should be considered combatants and subjected to being killed or whether they should be considered civilians protected by international humanitarian law. People are also concerned about the many innocent bystanders often killed or injured by such attacks. In this paper, we will explore the legal aspect of drone targeted killings. Showing what makes it legal, how they go about the process of targeting suspected terrorists, and concluding with criticisms.
History
For a long time, States were eliminating enemies through targeted killings. It wasn’t until the early 2000’s that states openly said they were in involved in targeted killings. Only the United States and Israel have openly admitted the use of drone targeted killings. “The United States unofficially adopted targeted killing as a counterterrorism tactic in 2001 in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. In the first five years after 9/11, the United States conducted more than a dozen targeted killings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen.” 1 Under the Obama Administration that number has grown to more than a hundred. All they have to do is classify the conflict a certain way and it’s considered lawful.
The U.S. Department of Justice decided to put out stipulations to help with classification, on February 13 a White Paper was leaked and it set forth “the circumstances in which the U.S. government could use lethal force in a foreign country outside the area of active hostilities against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational