International Law Is The Violation Of National Law Throws A Nation Into Social Anomalies

As discussed in the next section, some critics of these types of responses to transnational terrorism argue that a law enforcement operations model should be applied rather than the law of armed conflict because of the nature of the operations that are involved. For instance, Kels notes that human rights advocates “insist upon a legal geography of war, whereby states must apply a law enforcement (rather than armed conflict) model to any hostilities conducted outside of universally recognized hot battlefields like Afghanistan” (B3). This approach, however, ignores the realities of military operations on the ground and consequences of using a law enforcement operations model rather than the law of armed conflict to control these efforts (Kels B3). As Kels points out, “Holding a drone operator, fighter pilot or sailor directing ordnance at an overseas terrorist hideout to the same detain-first, shoot-last standards as a Metro police officer would negate the very purpose of the weapons system, which is precisely the goal of some activists” (B3). Indeed, rather than improving America’s opportunities to apply FSW to eliminate threats emanating from other countries that are unable or unwilling to stop them, these arguments only add further fuel to the anti-drone rhetoric in ways that may even encourage additional terrorist incursions from abroad.

September 11, 2001: one of the most grueling days in the history of the United States, the biggest terrorist attack on American soil. Not only did these attacks destroy symbols of America and take the lives of innocent workers, family members, heroes, and friends, but they sparked the discussion of public safety pitted against personal security in the country. On October 7, 2001, President George W. Bush administered the first use of drones in the fight against terrorism. The controversial topic has left many Americans asking themselves the crucial question: Should the United States continue using drone strikes against terrorists? The morality and effectiveness of drones has prompted discussions in the fight against terrorism on the homefront. The United States should continue to use drone strikes to fight in the war against terrorism as it is an ethical strategy in order to save the lives of many Americans.

Today’s new military technologies are often developed in covert labs, with the public only learning of them after they have fulfilled their violent purpose, which too often is questionably unethical. To demonstrate why this covert development is dangerous, and to show how almost all involved find a way to deny responsibility, this paper will focus on the Predator drone. An investigation of this topic will be shown best through a chronological investigation of what led to the Predator becoming an unmoderated weapon. This investigation will establish just how many people are involved in making a drone, and help to inform an opinion on the moral foundations of unmanned warfare. It may also help to clarify which people are responsible for the unintended deaths in many drone strike. The military industrial establishment in the United States is often driven by a regard for money, and is slowly turning what should be considered dangerous weapons, into merchandise with more marketing budgets than some fortune 500 companies. Friedrich Nietzsche’s thoughts on how humans develop their moral code from our surroundings gives shows the society is generally fine with the kind of distanced killing drones allow, as few people are vehemently against the use of Unmanned Drones in warfare. The Predator drone has effectively put great distances between the pilot and death, this new form of killing has been taken advantage of by our own mind, with the Id gaining greater releases of violent

Certain polls suggest that the average American supports the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts. What the average American doesn’t know is since 2014 the U.S. led coalition in Syria and Iraq has conducted over 13,500 strikes in Iraq and Syria. Taking innocent lives and causing destruction in already weak countries. In 1996 the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), was born but it wasn’t a combat drone. In Obama's years as president, he dropped 563 strikes almost ten times that of how much Bush dropped in his years, the catch is the 563 from Obama were in nonactive battlefields. In active battlefields, we have performed over 20,000 strikes. Since there are no laws on drone use it makes it easy to commit what many believe to be war crimes. Drones may seem like a good solution to terrorism, but we need a structure of law for drones and those who use them.

According to Jeffrey H. Smith and John B. Bellinger III for politico.com magazine “Throughout the 20 the century the United States, more than any other country, championed the development of the international law of armed conflict. But in this century many nations accuse the United States of abandoning that leadership by using drones to conduct hundreds of targeted killings of terror suspects in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere, in what they see as a violation of international law. And now, with the world watching, President Obama may decide to expand the use of drones to Iraq to counter the advances of the militant group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)” (SMITH, BELLINGER , "Mr. President, We Need Rules for Drones - POLITICO Magazine"). With this growing operation it also comes with it criticism where individuals and nations argues that the United States Government has given itself the power and

When the U.S. unexpectedly faced the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks which left thousands dead and millions dealing with dread and anxiety, the nation’s capital and the Bush administration decided to begin using the comparatively new technology of UAVs more frequently to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. These unmanned aerial vehicles (also known as combat drones) are weapons of war that transport bombs and missiles for precision strikes (“Drones: What are they and how do they work?”). But it wasn’t until President Obama took office that the usage of these drones turned over-excessive; the Obama administration has killed more individuals with UAVs than those civilians who have died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an approximate and confirmed number of 3,674 including innocent civilians (Zenko). Even though some of the drone strikes that the U.S. has carried out have been successful in eliminating high-profile terrorist suspects, there still

A large debate has overtaken some of the legal landscape as to whether or not targeted killings are actually legal under the existing international law. Mainly this is a reflecting of the broad geographical scope of the war on terror. One of the biggest legal arguments is the legal status of the targets and if the air strikes can be considered discriminate, proportionate and necessary as stated in the rules of war. Debates about the legitimacy of targeted killings continue to rage. It is precisely this union on the importance of international law that peaks the interest of many so much. One of the main points of argument in the current debate about drones is whether or not the United States is actually at war with those it is targeting. We know that we are at war with terror, but we have never declared war on ISIS. Although this may seem like a relatively trivial concern, it has significant implications for deciding the legality of individual operations. After all, it is the presence or absence of conflict that ultimately decides what body of law is applicable. Within the confines of armed conflict, for example, it is generally expected that the lex specialis of war, which combines elements of both International Humanitarian Law and human rights law, applies (Gregory, T., 2015). The U.S. government has been very clear that it considers itself to be at war with those it is

Opponents argue that by removing one of the key restraints to warfare – the risk to one’s own forces – unmanned systems make undertaking armed attacks too easy and will make war more likely. Evidence is beginning to emerge that it is the persistent presence of UAVs sitting over remote villages and towns simply looking for ‘targets of opportunity’ that may be leading to civilian casualties. The CIA oversees drone strikes as part of counterterrorism operations, but US officials refuse to discuss the program publicly. According to a tally by the nonpartisan New America Foundation, since 2004 there have been more than 260 US drone strikes in Pakistan, which the foundation estimates killed between 1,600 and 2,500 people. Not everyone feels comfortable with all this. Critics say that the legal and

The use of drone strikes makes people wonder if it is necessary and proportional to the threat. The principle of proportionality prohibits excessive force, taking consideration of both civilian and militant casualties of war. Even if a target is considered lawful under the IHL, the principle of proportionality still applies and any form of attack that is deemed to violate the principle of proportionality is subject to prohibition of the attack itself. The IHL have banned many weapons after WWII for causing more harm than necessary, such as explosive projectiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and cluster munitions. And this is only to name a few that have been banned by treaties like the Declaration of Saint Petersburg (1868), Geneva Protocol (1925), Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons (1972), Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (1993), and Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008) to name a few. In the case of Drone warfare, drones itself are not dangerous or illegal, but the way they are being used by the US government raises many issues since civilians are becoming of target whether by accident or on purpose. Verification of the events in Pakistan confirms that militants are not defined strictly to terrorists, but any civilian can be classified as “militants” if they are dressed the same, or even in the same vicinity. Using signal

Drone strikes abroad are an increasing global catastrophe. Due to the negative effects that drones have on human beings, the risk outweighs the reward. Drones, unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, are classified under remotely - controlled aircraft. These drones may be armed with missiles and bombs for attack missions. The earliest make-shift drones have been used for military purposes since the 1800s. As warfare and military weaponry have changed, so have drones. Since modified for modern military operations in the the early 2000s, their uses have rapidly expanded due to cost effectiveness and success. Since then, more than 87 countries own and use some type of surveillance or attack drone. It wasn’t until recently when

In response to deadly terrorist attacks, the US took to Iraq and Afghanistan with whatever new technology they could find, and drones have ever since become a staple of the American strategy in the War on Terror. However, given the imprecision in drone attacks and their tendency to promote radical anti-US ideals, they have proven to neither be an effective nor an ethical means of fighting terror. In order to successfully combat terrorism, the US can look out to the international community, and further engage their assistance in preventing the growth of terrorism. If the US can cut off all sources of funding to growing terrorist networks and create a strong ground coalition with local groups to take back foothold cities from terrorists, there will no longer be a need for drone attacks. If accomplished, the perpetuation of radical sentiments will slow, and the US can implement more creative strategies against terror. Drones are okay if they are delivering a book on terrorism, but let us stop using them to chase after a misplaced notion that drones are an effective solution to

Technological advances play a more substantial role in the twenty-first century than any other century. New innovations are being implemented in a variety of subjects and fields, a few of which include athletics, medicine, and, more recently, military. Operators of militaristic drones fly the device at high altitudes and can control their view by turning the drone and zooming in on the landscape below. One feature that spikes controversy is the ability to lock onto a target and strike the suspected perpetrator, who could possibly end up being an innocent civilian from elevated levels. When observing the negative outcomes of these mechanisms, it is realized that stricter regulations on the use of drone attacks by the United States military need

Rather than degrade the insurgency in countries such as Pakistan, Boyles( 2013) argues that the use of drones and other targeting technologies have the Pakistani government an “uncredible competitor” for the loyalty of the citizens. The logic that drones target only “militants” or combatants and do not affect other citizens, he believes is not factual. According to him “while drones terrify their intended target innocent villagers are also termed of being in the wrong place at the wrong time “. The greatest danger, however is in the global race for drone technology.

Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, which are operated remotely via satellite and have various uses such as surveillance, reconnaissance and perhaps the most controversial use which is utilizing drones to deliver air strikes. Military drones, which are used to eliminate both imminent and potential terrorist threats are extremely beneficial for the war against terror. They are much more efficient at delivering airstrikes when compared to their alternatives while simultaneously instilling fear in the minds of the militants. Critics claim drone strikes cause avoidable civilian casualties and psychological torture. However, the benefits substantially outweigh the drawbacks as drones are the better than their alternatives, they prevent the most civilian casualties compared to their counterparts, deliver devastating blows to terrorist organizations and are the best course of action to initiate positive change in countries like Pakistan.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones, are remote controlled aircraft with numerous applications. Smaller drones are used today for surveillance while larger ones can carry large missiles and bombs. When the “War on Terror” first started this technology was still in its infancy while today there are over 7,000 drones ready to deploy. (Murphy) With the extreme jump in the use of this ever growing technology it has garnered a great deal of controversy over its use by the military. The main arguments between the two sides are exactly how effective are they at killing the enemy while keeping civilians safe and are drones a better alternative to just “boots on the ground.” The U.S. should continue to use drones in the Middle East but we need to alter exactly how we use them. These being that we need sufficient information on the target area to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties and sufficient measures in place to continue safe operation.