Drone Strikes Justifiable, Or Are They Just The Opposite?
3105 Words13 Pages
Are drone strikes justifiable, or are they just the opposite? Some argue that drone strikes are not the best course of action against suspected terrorists. Because of the the large amount of civilian deaths caused by the poor methods of targeting, the moral aspects of this method, and the legality of this strategy. Though, many people who would disagree with my reasoning would have other things to say about it. Arguments against these ideas are directed towards the thought of drone strikes being “the leading choice in counter terrorism operations,” according to General James E. Cartwright (Pg1). Such arguments include that drone strikes “kill fewer civilians” as the national correspondent at Slate, Will Saletan said (Pg1).
Drones have taken the interest of militaries and private companies across the world. The “global market for unmanned aerial vehicles is now $6 billion a year” and that “more than fifty countries moving to acquire drones” Charleston Gazette journalists wrote (Pg1). Most of these are military drones, for private companies and the military to use. Many would argue that offensive and defensive drone use should have many safeguards in place that are backed up by international law. This would be to keep militaries and private users from violating human rights agreements, and to help prevent breaches of privacy. While drone strikes eliminate american casualties, they “also help distance the public from what is going on” as journalist Juan Cole iterated (Pg1) .