Anwar Al Awlaki Justification

We had finally done it!! On May 7, 2011 Osama bin laden had finally paid his due for the attacks on 9/11 killing thousands and injuring many more he is now buried in the ocean due to his tradition it's really funny he bombed us and we can bury him by his tradition. Osama Bin Laden’s killing was justified because he started 9/11 and he threatened national security of our american citizens and the Navy SEALS that were on the assignment of killing Bin Laden; However some people may argue that the assassination of Osama Bin Laden was justified because he did not want Americans to influence his people.

The general argument made by Daniel Byman in his 2013 article “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice” is that the United States should continue the use of drones. More specifically, he argues that drones are a “necessary instrument” for combating terrorism due to their effectiveness (Byman 32). He writes that drones do their jobs “remarkably well” by offering a “low-risk way” to target threats of national security (Byman 32). In addition, he writes that, in most cases, drones are the “most sensible” option, because they reduce the chances of civilians being “caught in the kill zone” (Byman 34, 35).  In this article, Byman is suggesting that the “critics” of drones need to realize that alternatives to drone strikes are

However, U.S. Special Forces were authorized to shoot to kill. Nonetheless, if this was a targeted killing, this action might be justified on the grounds that sometimes apprehension of a terrorist could not be a viable option considering the enormous risks

The assassination of Osama Bin Laden was justified because he murdered thousands of innocent people, and trained and armed other terrorist organizations. However, some think that his assassination was not justified because he was killing for his religion.

One cannot listen to the news or commentaries without hearing a controversial story that will cause you to pause and emit an "ahem sigh". In view of the recent tragedies around the world that affect America and Americans, one might reach a point of bewilderment and become reluctant to watch or listen to the news, however; if you are enrolled in a political science class, it is necessary to involve yourself in current events. The questionable killing of an American citizen was a forerunner event that caused discussion and debate. His name was Anwar-al-Awlaki who was killed in Yemen.

America must hold an ethical standard when using counterterrorism tactics such as drones in order to maintain support from Americans and nations with active jihadist organizations. This task can be difficult because various groups around the world have different opinions of how terrorism should be approached. For example, individuals who have Kantian ethics ideologies are against the assassination of terrorist because they believe that the killing another rational person is morality incorrect (Algar-Faria, 2015). In contrast, utilitarian ethic condones violence acts if the outcome outweighs the evilness if the violence does not occur. These two ethical positions are often used when discussing the ethicality of counterterrorism

The changing face of conflict has brought about an evolution on how we conduct and even think about warfare. Gross (2010) states that assassination was once prohibited under the statutes of international law but has increasingly become common in the modern day battlefield. A dilemma is presented when we question is there any ethical basis of using assassination as a tool of modern warfare. There is increasing realization that one cannot engage in war using the conventional means. Terrorism and insurgence being the new methods employed in modern warfare mean fighting using conventional rules puts one at a major disadvantage. The killing of Osama Bin Laden according to White (2012) can be termed as an assassination; it was executed by a special

The general argument made by Natalie Dalziel in her 2014 article “Drone Strikes: Ethics and Strategy” is that U.S. drone strikes have many “strategic consequences” (6). More specifically, she argues that drone strikes “incite” terrorist attacks by “targeting the symptom of the problem rather than the cause” (Dalziel 6). She writes that U.S. drone strikes destabilize and “undermine the legitimacy of governments” where drone strikes occur by turning people to groups like al Qaeda “out of anger” over their government's failure to prevent drone strikes (Dalziel 5).  In addition, she writes that methods like the “signature strike and double-tap” increase the number of civilian casualties which leads to more “retaliation for the strikes” (Dalziel

Empirical studies of targeted killings and civilian casualties in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism show that drone strikes may obtain either of the following two outcomes:

Al Qaeda is one of the most well known terrorist groups of the 21st century due to their statement terrorists acts that have shaken entire countries such as the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in the USA and the bombing of Madrid’s railway station in Spain. This group was founded in Saudi Arabia in 1988 by Osama Bin Laden after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan. All actions that they take are justified by the Islamic religion and they are driven by the Sharia, naming themselves the Jihad or the members of the Holy War. Bin Laden and his deputies have been killed by the US in 2011 in an attempt to stop this terrorist group, however they continue to run today, only with less control and more killings, going by the name ISIS or the Islamic

This brings into question the magnitude and price of the collateral damage from these strikes, that these drones are meant to minimize in the first place. As reports and interviews about the drone strikes are released by the press, more and more information is gathered and more statistics can be developed. An example is the Obama Administration’s “targeted killing”. Many argue that this killing is not so accurate. A report released stating that throughout a specific time frame, that attempts to kill 41 combatants ended up costing the lives of 1,147 people (Friedersdorf 1). This means that the Obama Administration’s supposedly “accurate” drones only have a 4% accuracy (for that given period of time).

When taking a look at the issue through the Utilitarian’s perspective, the argument could be made that the amount of violence that could occur due to the assassinations of other heads of state might outweigh the assassinations altogether. First of all, if we were to start planning the assassinations of foreign leaders, those who follow them might retaliate which could quite possibly lead to the possibility of war. If America was to constantly engage in these assassinations, we would accumulate an abundance of enemies over time who could potentially plot against our entire country, leading to more violence than ever. Although these assassinations might lead to the happiness of many Americans, it won’t have the same result for those who just

To begin, I have to admit this discussion forum has challenged me. Whenever I think of killing, my brain automatically thinks the word bad. But, the readings have made me realize that assassination or targeted killing, as Statman refers to it, “is not always morally wrong” (White 502). Statman states, “"Thus, people generally fail to notice the moral problem with many instances of killing in war even when they are fierce objectors to the death penalty, because they view the situation of war as different from the non-war context” (Statman 512).

According to Jeffrey H. Smith and John B. Bellinger III for politico.com magazine, “first, improve transparency in drone strikes. The United States should at minimum disclose the number of strikes, the number killed, the affiliations of those targeted, the number of civilian casualties, and the procedures for targeting decisions. It is true that many foreign governments do not want us to acknowledge that drone strikes are being conducted from or on their soil, but the United States should begin the process of weaning those governments from the cloak of secrecy” (SMITH, BELLINGER , "Mr. President, We Need Rules for Drones - POLITICO Magazine"). Secondly add more oversite to ensure that individual’s rights and freedoms do not become compromised by; profiling, prosecution without due process. Finally, according to Jeffrey H. Smith and John B. Bellinger III for politico.com magazine, the United States should not have the ability to use lethal force unless there is absolutely no other

First and foremost, not every single detail of an act of terrorism should be disclosed by the media. I understand their need to have the most breaking information and have “what the other guy doesn’t have”, but the public does not need the details that practically gives a roadmap on how to become a dangerous jihadist. For example, names and information about key players in ISIS and al-qaeda does not need to be released to the public. Those are details that federal agencies and local law enforcement can keep private in order to effectively conduct investigations. In order to prevent potential homegrown terrorists from following the same blueprint as others who have performed terrorists act, the release of videos or names of extreme Muslim leaders