However, United States and United Kingdom’s airstrikes were ought to be extreme since the bombing sabotaged the innocent ones. The possible reason for US to undertake such actions was to avenge for the severe losses from the 9/11 event. Additionally, in order to demonstrate US’s strong military power to the globe, US had taken this as an opportunity. Whereas the US had successfully proven its troops’ strengths, Barrack Obama now faces criticism: rash, uncooperative, and brutal. Indeed, the United Nations Security Council might not be able to come up with the most feasible resolutions to cope with the dilemmas that take place in the Middle East and was unable to execute immediate actions; however, US’s defilement might provoke other series of social unrest in neighboring regions and more unknowing residents have to be sacrificed.
If every article becomes clear, the applicability will never be questioned or argued upon. The Geneva Conventions have stated that fighter who do not abide by the rules of war will not be protected by the treaty but in fact they would be subjected to prosecution or further trials under the conditions of the Criminal Law but it would be better if it also states the actual requirements of war, punishments (according to the type of the criminal), detailed rules of law projecting a clear image about the military personnel and they rights of protection and duties, terrorists, and the provisions of a nuclear
Some say that the US are in their full right to use drones strikes since it complies with international law, specifically the law of war, as long as the US and the target are in an armed conflict or if the target constitutes an imminent threat to national security. Since the US is in an armed conflict with terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda, they may lawfully use drone strikes whether the target is on the battlefield or not (3). Some, however, say that the drone strikes are illegal as they violate the basic human rights, such as the right to live as well as violating international humanitarian
Some people say that “Drones are against international law,” (Ten). Another piece of information show that some people might negatively say about drones are “Drones remain in secrecy,” (Ten). These are significant because drones cannot help reduce public privacy, yet drones have not really been viewed as an advancement by many. Meanwhile , some online shopping services, such as Amazon, plan to use drones that can deliver someone’s purchase to the buyer in a mere 30 minutes or a bit more (Amazon). In conclusion, the military should, in fact, use drones because they can complete underwater missions and can protect the general public from potential outbreaks.
In case of a war, the Security Council may call upon the Members of the UN to completely or partially interrupt economic relations and sever diplomatic relations . It may do so by ‘air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security’ . The Members of UN may either use their own armed forces for military operations or merely provide assistance and facilities, including a rite of passage, to the Security Council for the effective execution of the resolution. These actions may take place by reaching a special agreement with the Security Council, or ‘on its call’ . As is often criticized, this Article (42) of the Security Council has been applied rather sparingly.
The end goal here was to utilize the plague in bombs which were to be deployed against enemy cities and military personnel; once a subject had been exposed to any of the above conditions, he or she was likely subject to dissection without anesthetic. The purpose of cutting open live, unsedated subjects was to observe the effects of the experiment without the potential effects of anesthesia on the human body. Unit 731 committed large-scale, systematic crimes against humanity and ethnicity. Those crimes must be revealed and recorded, so that humanity can remember the price of peace and cherish it.
For without recruits, there are no individuals to carry out terrorist strategies or plans. It doesn’t matter if we agree with the rationalization of the use of terrorism only that we acknowledge the truth behind the roots of it. As Khouri stated, “Disrupting groups such as ISIL militarily without removing the causes that give them life is a fool’s
It was essential to have both tiers established as one of the points of deterrence is that the response should be appropriate to the offense. In this case, a nuclear response to an offense through conventional means would not be appropriate and would most likely escalate the conflict to a level that neither side wanted. The Cold War experienced both levels of
Non human autonomous combatants, like airplanes and the future vision of Douhet, where the potential of aerospace warfare would lie, the mitigation or complete negation of physical barriers that armies and navies must inherently adhere too, airplanes can ignore. This is where the potential of unmanned warfare lies, the ability of RANH to ignore and operate without the limitations of humans. This genre of warfare is ‘Musashian’ in theory and thought. That speed and death will prevail, once swords are drawn.
Thus, all these factors together, demonstrate that the notion of continued immunity for ex-heads of state is inconsistent with the provisions of the Torture Convention and that Senator Pinochet does not enjoy any immunity . Comment and Reflection In re Pinochetaccepts the general rule of international law to be an upholding of State sovereignty. However, it does carve out certain exceptions with respect to crimes against humanity in order to indicate that State and sovereign leaders don’t have the absolute authority to inflict harms of any type on their citizens in the name of governance .
The Taliban was asked to hand over Bin Laden because the terrorist organization would then be unable to operate without its leader, but they refused to cooperate. Their claim was that the United States has not given any evidence proving that Bin Laden had been behind 9/11. An interview of Bin Laden saying, “‘If inciting people to [suicide bomb] is terrorism […], then let history be witness that we are terrorist’” (Bin Laden 's Sole Post-September 11 TV Interview Aired par. 6) that aired shortly after the tragic day and the Islamic religious ruling Bin Laden had written which urged Muslims to attack the U.S. were provided.
Every American is being monitored even without reasonable cause for the government to be monitoring them. The intentions of both acts were to monitor Americans who are supporting the terrorist and help fight the terrorist crimes within our country. The problem is that the government is over stepping that line and is monitoring everyone’s phone data. Phone data is not a reasonable source to gain suspicion of someone who a terrorist or helping a terrorist. Washington Post has posted on May 24, 2015 that the FBI confirms that no major terrorism cases were caught form the Patriot phone data collection (Krieger, 2015)
Non-state actors attempt to attack the U.S. and recruit U.S. citizens to participate in attacks against our homeland without warning. The prospect of terrorist attacks on our homeland from non-state actors or our own radicalized homegrown terrorists has increased a
Based on current research and expert opinions I argue that U.S. drone strikes are an ineffective and damaging long-term counterterrorism strategy. Mounting evidence suggests that they do not only increase anti-American sentiment, but also allow the United States to become emotionally disconnected from the horrors of war. Michael Boyle, PhD, former member of President Obama 's counterterrorism expert advisory group, mirrors and builds on these ideas in his paper "The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare": "The Obama administration 's embrace of drones is encouraging a new arms race for drones that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent, destabilized and
However, drone warfare doesn 't require the authorization from Congress, and can solely conducted by the executive branch. According to Kaay and Kreps, the War Powers Resolution does not cover the use of drones outside the designated war zone . The War Power Resolution only requires congressional authorization when troops are physically sent over Moreover, the use of drones are justified under the framework of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The AUMF allows the president to use military force against individuals who were associated with terrorist activities of 9/11 . Therefore, the executive is allowed to use deadly force against