Drone Program Research Paper

The purpose of this research paper is to show how unmanned aerial vehicles, better known as UAV’s or drones infringe on the Fourth Amendment and Due Process of the law.

Menacing spy craft... unmanned aerial vehicles... and missile laden predators. These are the images that come to mind when the word "drone" is spoken. Taken to new heights during the Global War on Terror, military drones have struck fear into the hearts of America's enemies. Now the U.S. government is starting to look inward toward its next target: the American people. Already starting along the US/Mexico border, big brother is indiscriminately watching whole neighborhoods via high tech zoom and heat imaging technology. There is even a debate in congress as to whether it is lawful for an American citizen to be killed by a missile firing drone. These actions and debates have caused legitimate concerns for the American people in regards to

Since the invention of the plane and other flying machines, there has been the thought of making an unmanned flying machine. Today we know our unmanned aerial vehicles by another name: drones. In my paper I will be using both Colonel Dawn Zoldi’s article about drones at home and “The Drone as Privacy Catalyst”, by Ryan Calo to evaluate privacy-related matters that people should consider when it comes to drones. Zoldi’s analysis of how the government can help with personal privacy and unwarranted use of unwarranted searches will aid my own analysis. I will focus on drones and how they relate to the fourth amendment, taking a nuanced approach to operational purpose, renewing focus on collection, dissemination and retention, molding the remedy to the violation, drone as privacy catalyst and finally adding my own thoughts and criticisms about how this could possibly affect privacy.

During Clinton’s presidency the CIA borrowed “a gangly, insect-like airplane called the RQ-1 Predator” from the Air Force which allows Clinton to view what is known as a “live drone feed” (Mazzetti 61). Some were impressed by the “insect-like” drone but felt like it would be a waste of time to sit and watch the feed. Those opposed felt that it had no use to it, but only to realize later on how great of an impact it would have for the government (Mazzetti 61). Drones would be the key weapon for a “secret war” since “it was a tool that killed quietly,” and would allow strikes in restricted areas where publicist couldn’t go (Mazzetti 99-100). This weapon created a whole new meaning behind wars and assassinations as some view them as inhuman others view it as success. Many believe citizens should have trust in the government and adhere that drones are being used to “”find, fix, and finish” terrorists” (Mazzetti 77). The CIA use of the drones makes them

Technology is changing the way humans complete certain tasks. Whether it be communicating with others, or using navigation tools for directions, technology affects everyone in some way or another. In fact, technology is changing the way our government fights wars with other countries and terrorist groups. Drones have become one of the most sought after pieces of military equipment in the last decade. They have become one of the many important tools our government uses for counterterrorism policies in the United States. Recently, these defense mechanisms have received a great deal of public attention, which has stirred up much controversy. Many people, including government officials and politicians, question the necessity and ethics of drones

The combat drones also rapidly compound the well-founded fears of the terrible abuse that this practice is susceptible to. Thus, the legality of the practice is what has been questioned as many times as the United States Government has practices these killings. Targeted killing inherently poses frightening risks of error and abuse. These fears are at a heightened level due to American mistakes at Guantanamo Bay and the interrogation techniques on detainees who were denied access of the full protections of the criminal justice system. Some critics condemn targeted killing as extrajudicial execution while others have accepted this practice as just another aspect (legitimate) of armed conflict against determined, organized, armed, and international terrorist groups.

Drone strikes are incredibly damaging to the United States’ international image and prestige; without a step away from remote killing, the leadership on high will continue to be met with resistance when attempting to establish military ties with countries that have a clear view on the violations and atrocities associated with drone warfare.

"Wiretapping American citizens on American soil without the required warrant is in direct contravention of our criminal statutes,” stated by Senator Russ Feingold; pertains to the unwarranted wiretapping of United States civilians suspected of terrorist affiliation (Feingold). The National Security Agency’s act of wiretapping the United States’ people is argued to be illegal and a violation of civil rights. However, under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the President of the United States is permitted to authorize a terrorist surveillance program to protect the nation from foreign attacks (Feingold). Therefore, wiretapping should be allowed in order to

After 9/11, the U.S started to implement policies intended to combat terrorism in hopes of preventing further attacks and bring those who were involved to justice. One such policy that the U.S started was to implement the heavy use of drones- unmanned aircraft capable of bombing specific targets. These drones would be controlled by a pilot remotely from the U.S, thousands of miles from where the strikes were taking place. The U.S used these drones to assassinate suspects who were believed to have been linked to terrorism as well as various targets that were deemed to be associated with terrorism, such as weapons factories. Currently, however, there is a debate on the legality, morality, and effectiveness of drones. One side sees the drones as effective at destroying targets while at the same time, minimizing civilian casualties. On the other hand, the other side believes that drones are reliable for

CQ Researcher’s article entitled “Domestic Drones” centers on the problems that ensue from the flaws in unmanned aircraft safety. Domestic drone use has expanded from the past few years to an array of firefighting and police surveillance to scientific research and aerial photograph. This expanded use, however, provides several security concerns, including a possible invasion of privacy and relaxed consequences of misuse. The debatable question here is whether drone surveillance by police should always require a warrant (McGlynn). By analyzing two opposing viewpoints on this topic through an in-depth observation of its use of logos, pathos, and ethos, this question can be addressed with professionally formulated perspectives.

This urge to know more lead me to consider purchasing a drone for myself, but there were a few problems about that consideration. I didn’t have a complete understanding about drone maneuverability and regulations which lead me to speculate whether or not to begin exploring the field of drones. My desire to study about unmanned aerial systems strengthened over the next couple of years, but I couldn’t find many lessons that were interactive and thorough enough. I find it amazing how a brand new view of the ground below can be accessed with such a small and agile product. For a great portion of my existence, I always thought that huge aircrafts would be the only functionable creations that would be able to fly the skies, so when I first witnessed the potential of these aerial systems, I was quickly captivated to properly wield one someday. The feature of recording flights was also mind-blowing because it opened a new way to express the world around us through film. It’s amazing how creative content creators can be when using them. Being able to easily access a new way to express oneself is a progression into the future we have set for

citizens. In 2014, the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were at odds on this issue, with the Senate favoring an additional review process for such attacks and the House opposing this. The Senate committee also supports an annual public report on the casualties resulting from drone strikes, which the House committee also opposes (Lowenthal, 2009). A major issue that came about with UAV’s was the lack of congressional oversight or “transparency.” Although the intelligence committees are briefed on covert action findings, operations using UAV’s are not considered covert action and sometimes do not have the same level of visibility as other covert operations. Some members of some of these intelligence committees suggested of establishing another secret court, similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to review potential UAV operations. Opponent of this suggestions pointed out that courts review legal cases but are not intended to make wartime decisions and that such a court could, in effect, become superior to decisions made by the president as commander-in-chief and such a court would also not necessarily improve the due process rights of a proposed target as the target would have no representation in or chance to appeal the proceedings (Lowenthal,

Drones that are currently being used, are targeting individuals who may not be involved in any terrorist

The technological advancement which we have seen in the way we capture quality photos and videos got to new heights with the invention of Drones. This current trend and innovation has encompassed the values and interests of people of all ages. It is quite interesting to state that Drones are serving the purposes of meeting the needs of our National security. Although, this would make for a good discussion, our primary aim of looking at the composition of a Drone and all it entails is to help give you a strong base for taking your decisions. The first thing to note is that there are Drones which are meant for Children. These drones serve the purposes of education, fun and other outdoor activities as occasion demands. On the flip side, some drones are configured to give more robust output when they are put to use. These can serve the needs of a more mature consumer.

Even with the laws that are in place drones tend to be able to work around them. They are able to “maneuver through each and every loophole of the jurisprudence for warrantless searches” (Koerner, 2015, para. 5). If the current laws are not sufficient enough to regulate drones and protect people’s personal privacy, then new laws are needed. But, there are conflicting thoughts as to who should make those laws and regulate drones. Currently most laws regarding drones are created and enforced by each state individually. Although, only eight states have enacted laws regarding drones, even among those eight states there are varying definitions for what constitutes as a drone (Matiteyahu, 2015, para. 33-34). Some people believe that because the FAA