Entering another sovereign state’s territory with military intentions and no permission is generally frowned upon by the international community, but if no other options exist, drones would be the best way to enter. If for whatever reason America were to stay completely out of the business of, for example, Pakistan, that nation’s army would be able to do whatever it wanted. In the case of Pakistan, their army is known to “regularly torture and execute detainees, and... often indiscriminately bomb civilian areas or use scorched-earth tactics against militant groups” (Byman). The immensely bloody and savage tactics employed by many middle-eastern countries go very much against the beliefs of Americans, so it is clear that the best possible …show more content…
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 attack must minimize collateral damage and keep from using excess force. Lastly, drone strikes must use precaution. To do this, the attack will have to ensure that all measures to protect civilians and their property have been taken (Radsan 14). Altogether, drone strikes are now very regulated and only used once each of the previous steps has been taken and the target can be safely
In recent discussions of trumps airstrike, a controversial issue has been whether or not Trumps strike was warranted. On the one hand, Author Tom Smith argues that the syrian strike was a good thing. From this perspective Smith assumes Trump is taking a step in the right direction. On the other hand, however, Author Aldan Heir argues that the syrian strike was illegal. In the words of Heir, one of the view’s main proponents,” These airstrikes are clearly illegal.”
During the brutal attack called 9/11, four planes got hijacked by terrorists. One hit the the Pentagon, another one crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, and the last two hit the World Trade Center towers in New York City. Thousands of lives died that day due to the attack, but many have asked , “Could they have been saved?”In fact, they did not even need to be saved, it could have been prevented all together. The intelligence agencies FBI, CIA, NSA were partially responsible for not stopping the attacks.
On September 11, 2001, 343 FDNY firefighters and innocent people tragically died inside the Twin Towers. This horrific event will never be forgotten, and it marks hope, resilience, and unity as a nation. Through the examination of 9/11 and the influence that it had on the United States, especially with the deaths of FDNY responders, related illnesses, and the rebuilding of the One World Trade Center, it becomes abundantly clear why 9/11 should be remembered. On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by foreign al-Qaeda terrorists who hijacked four commercial airline planes.
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.
For example a drone is ideal for SWAT operations, crowd control, criminal missing person, forensics crime scene, gangs, narcotics, search and rescue, vehicle crashes and corrections (prisons). However, using drones for the constant surveillance of someone at their personal property is illegal unless the law enforcement agency obtains a warrant. There are many cases that have been thrown out due to be in violation of the fourth amendment. In the case Kyllo v. the United States (2001)” Suspicious marijuana was being grown in petitioner Kyllo’s home in a triplex, agents used a thermal imaging device to scan the triplex to determine if the amount of heat emanating from it was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth.
Our Innocent Lives At Stake A drone strike can kill a person in one room of a house, also people in the room next door, to even across the street like a school. There has been cases where the drones have had civilians attacked while along the intended target. These were all unplanned deaths, all innocent deaths. I oppose the use of drones in warfare. From all the drone strikes killing innocent people or putting their lives at stake and ours, is a horrendous movement, that’s why in my opinion I think we shouldn’t have drones.
In the article,”Drones and GIS: A Look at the Legal and Ethical Issues”by Caitlin Dempsey, describes the negative characteristics of drones. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has set several laws on these hazardous toys. For instance, the FAA made restrictions on how high a drone can fly, where it can fly, and keeping all drones under control. Privacy is the main problem in the moral use of drones.
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.
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.
Imagine looking up into the sky on a bright, sunny day, only to see a missile flying at you. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, this is exactly what has happened to an estimated 3,500 human beings during drone strikes in foreign countries. The American Government claims that it has the right to assassinate anyone at anyplace and anytime for secret reasons based on secret evidence in a secret process taken on by unidentified individuals. This applies even in America and to American citizens. If this does not scare you, then it should because based on my extensive research of this topic, the United States must abolish our current weaponized drone program because drone strikes kill large numbers of civilians, they create more enemies than they kill, and they are ultimately ineffective.
Are drones really productive in warfares? Or are they relatively dangerous? This has been a controversial dilemma regarding the safety of our people. A decision must be executed on whether should be used in warfare or not. The use of drones in warfare is not a major threat to the world for various reasons which take into consideration the safeness and efficiency of the drones.
In conclusion, drones should still exist in today’s world. They can help eradicate problems for major companies, they are much quicker, faster, and safer to utilize, and help protect society. Drones are commonly used for surveillance and protection, but some also have the capability of doing small favors for customers and business such as delivering packages to buyers. Those actually trying to make efforts to advance the world into a biotech dimension where technology is a key component of life would do anything to revolutionize the modern day world. Although some may think that drones aren’t always the way route to take, essentially drones help assist people with day to day problems.
The suggestion of using drones to fight in wars may sound as if it was the greatest idea ever, but many people would disagree with allowing drones to fight. For example, researchers say that out of the total amount of persons killed by drones, only 2 percent are “high-level” targets (Americas). That means there are more innocent people killed than there are of those who are a threat. The US government does not recognize the large amount of civilians killed, although there is plenty of proof. Many people would hate to think that innocent people are being killed by drones.
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.
There is a high percentage of civilian casualties involved in the use of drones. While this is not a premium circumstance, sometimes there are no ways around such casualties. It truly is a shame and is unavoidable in many cases. When troops are boots on the ground to combat terrorism they will often suffer casualties and also cause civilian casualties within these compounds. Ergo, the drones are ultimately avoiding more causalities than necessary.