Have you ever flown a drone? Well, there are people in the army that fly a drone every single day for war use and there is a debate right now on whether or not that should be happening. Drones should be used in the military for many reasons including less human deaths and injuries in war. Another advantage of drones is more firepower. Finally, the last advantage of drones is better aim and more control over what they do and how they do it. A counter argument that could be used to go against drones is we don’t really know what they’re going to do and the could malfunction at any minute.
The criticism of the drone grows The debate on unmanned aircraft known as drones, have really taken off in the US in recent months. Now it 's not just the US military 's use abroad criticized, resistance grows even against the increasing use within its own borders. Unmanned aircraft, called drones, used by the US during the Vietnam War, but the last ten years, development has continued in the "war on terror". According to the American think tank the New America Foundation have up to 2 700 people have been killed in drone attacks in countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen since 2004.
It can be said that drones are a powerful weapon of war. Various people feel that drones are disrespectful, and morally problematic. One major issue is drones violating domestic law. There have been many drone strikes in Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries such as Yemen
When we think about drone or UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), first thing comes to our mind is; frightening, alien looking unmanned aircraft that has been involved with so many bombings and targeted killings. In “Drone Home: What Happens When Drones Return to America”, from Time, Lev Grossman wrote drones are dreaded all around the globe, and possibly they have gotten this fear through the United States Military. Drone technology has been greatly improved last decade, now third of entire Air Force’s fleet is unmanned. U.S Government is sending drones to many war zones to eliminate high-ranking enemies or do surveillance successfully. Even though this rapidly growing technology is changing our perspective of war, it also changing our everyday life drastically to help our community. The U.S government should use drones because it will help us protect our borders securely, help fight with unexpected natural disasters and help our police force to document crime scenes.
Drones kill fewer civilians than any other military weapon but drone strikes target individuals who may not be terrorists or enemy combatants and drone strikes mostly kill low-value targets who are not significant threats to US safety and security. Even with the copious amounts of surveillance conducted on these individuals that are possibly terrotists, the drone attacks on them do not seem justified because of the lack of physical evidence that these individuals were a threat to the United states or to any country. Although drone strikes are legal in the United States and are subject to a strict review process and congressional oversight, drone strikes violate international law. Massive surveillance industrial complex post 9/11, has had many negative and positive effects through out the past decade. The meaning of our laws and policies have not been able to keep pace with the advances in technology or the development of surveillance as a whole.
U.S. drone strikes come with risks. They can kill innocent civilians, they can undermine the authority of other nations, and they grant the president the power to assassinate anyone he deems is a terrorist threat abroad, without any authorization. For all the controversy surrounding the drone attacks they have one thing going for them. They are effective and the alternatives are not. Since 2013, President Obama has greatly expanded the use of drones, deploying more than 360 strikes, which is up nearly 50 from the Bush administration.
Domestic militarized drones have the potential to be disastrous for the civil liberties of American citizens. Many Americans agree with this, as stated in Evan Slinger’s article on Christian Science Monitor, “.... domestic drone surveillance might erode civil liberties, and degrade the political fabric of the United States. To some extent the American public knows this is the case and is invested in moving forward carefully.” America’s citizens have already witnessed first-hand how there are parts of our government that have overstepped their boundaries by engaging in surveillance of the domestic population. America needs to cut back on their monitoring of citizens because with the current Status Quo, American citizens have no privacy
The US has converted the entire world into a battlefield where drone attacks can be directed at individuals anywhere anytime (Benjamin, 2012). Drones could satisfy the rules of international humanitarian law, if launched against a well-known military target, to advance military objectives, not harm civilians to a degree disproportionate to the military objective sought, and if the drone attack would not cause unnecessary suffering. Such a drone attack could comply with the rules of International humanitarian
He argues that the use of drones overseas poses no threat to U.S. forces and that the attacks produce fewer casualties than other alternative fighting methods that are currently used. Byman claims that the drone strikes are very effective at eliminating threats overseas and
It is not hard to see where Obama stands since the drones are unmanned, which means less American casualties. Not to mention, the drones’ accuracy leaves nothing to be desired. However, the drones are still not perfect. Their targeting depends on the intelligence available to the pilot, and it is impossible to fully avoid civilian casualties. As a result, civilians being killed means a raise in contempt for the United States.
Drones use for targeted killing is covered by international humanitarian law, or IHL, as long as all usage follows the principles set by IHL: distinction, military necessity, proportionality, and precaution (Radsan 14). In order for a drone to engage a target, the target must be confirmed as a “functional combatant,” which is distinction. People “directly participating in hostilities” are considered to be functional combatants and are legally allowed to be targeted under American law. Next, it must be certain that there is military necessity; the target will not be killed without any military advantage. Third, proportionality is required in making sure that an unreasonable amount of force is not used.
The military is using the drones on those who are a threat to the U.S. NATO. Air strikes overthrew and eventually captured and killed Qaddafi with the help of Libyan rebels ("Drones: Should"). In 2011, a CIA-operated drone targeted and killed Anwar al-Awlaki when the Obama administration oversaw one of the most controversial drone strike yet. Anwar was a Muslim cleric, the U.S. government to be a senior leader in Al Qaeda ("Drones: Should"). After the 9/11 terrorist attack, President George W. Bush had ordered a deployment of armed unmanned aircraft to assist in overthrowing the Taliban, the Islamist Regime of Afghanistan ("Drones: Should").
US NEWS informs us, “Drones in Seattle and Miami are equipped with video cameras capable of taking daytime and nighttime video, as are drones used by the Texas Department of Public Safety.” In 1989 Supreme Court decision ruled that police may use helicopters to peer into semiprivate areas including the backyard of a house without first obtaining a warrant. The Congressional Research Service furthermore states “The legal issues discussed in this report will likely remain unresolved until the civilian use of drones becomes more widespread”. The fourth amendment prohibits any search and seizures without a warrant.
Uses of drones is one of the biggest reasons of new technology affecting the 4th amendment. Uses of drones is allowing that person to fly this piece of technology and see what somebody is doing. This is invading privacy, you're basically searching someone by watching them and seeing what's going on, and you have no warrant to do so. Drones need to be modified I believe. The next reason is the Apple and FBI disputes.
With the advancement of surveillance technology, many citizens feel that their privacy rights have been violated due to homeland security and the threat of terrorism. Throughout history our government has implemented domestic and international surveillance as a way to safeguard our society from other countries. Now the question that seems to arise within our society is if the government is infringing on our civil liberties? Or is this indeed protecting our nation from imminent danger?