Anwar Al Awlaki Justification

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

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 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.

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 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

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

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

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).

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

Imagine living with fear on a day to day basis with the expectation of a missile having the capability of obliterating where you’re standing right now by a single man on a computer in a matter of seconds without the slightest warning. The use of drone strikes in military operations is unacceptable. Accidental aftermath and the murder of innocent lives outweigh the desire to kill a few radical terrorists which can be achieved with ground soldiers lessening the amount of innocent bystanders killed in the process. To the stop this recklessness it is necessary that all drone strikes are ceased until suitable policies are implemented. Although drone strikes play a key role in fighting the war against terrorism the fact that military is striking fear into the hearts of the natives affecting their day to day lives in a negative way in reality makes us the actual terrorists.

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

A life lived in fear of death can do only harm. Thousands of people live like this because of the United States of America and the attacks they carry out. For example, in 2009, the United States of America targeted a man named Qari Hussain, an extremely dangerous militant. The United States executed countless drone strikes in hopes of killing Hussain. Finally, in 2012, the death of Qari Hussain arose, along with the death of 128 other civilians, 13 of which were children. The United States murdered over one hundred helpless bystanders to kill a single man. The easily-avoidable deaths encouraged much outrage in Pakistan (Ackman par. 3). These civilian deaths due to drone strikes occur more often than many choose to believe, which furthers the idea of abolishing the use of such deadly weapons. Although they benefit the United States of America’s military, the government should discontinue the use of drone strikes abroad.

The surveillance and range of drones is outstanding and while also being able to travel where soldiers can't, drones have made a lot of mistakes with trying to find high value targets like Osama bin Laden, “Drones monitored the Pakistani compound where Osama bin Laden, the head of the Islamist terrorist network Al Qaeda, was hiding before he was killed by U.S. operatives in May 2011” (“Drones.” Issues & Controversies). These assassinations of high value targets are all thanks to the monitoring and availability of drones like the Boston bombings when drones were able to track the bomber to his house and continue to chase him till he was them found by police and law enforcement. These killings and high profile assassinations have been going on since Bush and his administration to the drone program, “The administrations of President George W. Bush (R, 2001–09) and President Obama (D) made unprecedented use of unmanned aircraft in U.S. efforts abroad, particularly for targeted killings of high-profile militants, even in territories with which the U.S. is not technically at war” (“Drones.” Issues & Controversies). So the use and regulation of drones is a very selective process do to the fact that drones aren't very accurate so they only perform minor low key missions that only contain low profile targets, while soldiers and high grade military

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