Signature Strikes Against Terrorism

informant who provided information to the U.S. officials that the child is a terrorist. Should the decision to strike be only based on the informant? Can those informants who get money for their information are reliable? What if informants provide any information only to receive payment for it? The decision to strike should not be based only on such information on the basis of tremendous injustice, with no imminent threat and with no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is an actual terrorist group member. People in a war zones, such as Pakistan or Afghanistan, live in a constant fear of drones whooshing above their heads that may kill them “accidentally” by a strike, because statistically around 3,000 people were killed by strikes including estimate 200 children and many civilians who were also injured during strikes. President Obama said in this documentary “this is a targeted focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists.” Nevertheless, the identity of some of those terrorists is unknown and the

Reapers Alexander Taylor Chandler-Gilbert Community College Professor Torres English 101 Research Question: Are us drone strikes on foreign an act of terrorism? Thesis Statement: Yes; because they are agents for the purpose of spreading fear and death across the globe, violence used to send a political message, they encourage further and more brutal attacks.

When determining whether or not drone attacks should be initiated, the attacks should be approved and have an legitimate reason for carrying out the attack. Everyday drones are used to pin-point "suspicious activity" as well as daily activities around many communities. According to the article half of the 170 strikes were classified as signature strikes. "...signature strikes against targets outside of named kill list, targeting individuals based on their pattern of life or suspicious behavior". Signature strikes should be reprimanded to have full approval when deciding whether or not someone might be a threat. The article states "The administration's first known Predator strike occurred Feb. 4,2002 in Afghanistan, when a CIA Predator drone

In recent years, the number of terrorist attacks have increased since the use of drones. One terrorist attempted to blow up an American airliner in 2009, and another tried to blow up Times Square with a car bomb in 2010 (Source K). Both had stated that drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia motivated them to do this (Source K). A picture drawn by Paresh shows a drone dropping a bomb near a civilian; the next day, the victim rises from the grave, bringing with them radicalism and anti-americanism (Source E).

In President Obama’s speech on drone policy, given on May 23, 2013 in Washington D.C., he asserts, “dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield... Simply put, those [drone} strikes have saved lives.” Many American’s support this view. According to a July 18, 2013 Pew Research survey, 61% of Americans supported drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (Drake). However, this belief that drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networks around the world is widely contested. An opposing viewpoint is that these strikes create more terrorist than they kill. There is a common misperception that drones are precise, killing only the target and entourage. According to a meta-study of drone strikes, between 8 to 17% of all people killed are civilians (Sing). People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone

Top counterterrorist advisors from both the Bush and Obama administrations champion drone use as the most effective tool in the war on terror. They are relatively cheap, effective at killing terrorist with minimal civilian casualties. They protect US troops by preventing “boots on the ground” scenarios and ultimately make America safer. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is quoted as say, “the only game in town in terms of trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership” An important question to ask is: Are these short term advantages worth the long term repercussions. Michael J Boyle examines this question in, “The Cost and Consequences of Drone Warfare.” He first question the validity of the claim that drones are effective at killing

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.

Much controversy surrounds the use of drone strikes to mitigate terrorism. Many believe it is effective in eradicating terrorists, however the aftermath of the situation is quite contradictory. Drone strikes “kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war,

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

Counterterrorism policies prove to be quite perplexing to draft due to the fact that there are many aspects to consider when making them. Cronin’s article, Why Drones Fail, and Jordan’s article, When Heads Roll, argue that state responses to terrorism have shown to be ineffective in many aspects. Jordan’s article explicitly argues that killing leaders of terrorist groups will not always lead to the demise of the groups especially if they are religious based and decentralized. Cronin argues that misusing drones in an attempt to kill members of terrorist groups may have the long term consequence of further aggravating security issues for the United States . Thus both articles show the need for heavy caution and counter analysis when creating counter terrorism policies.

The 9/11 attacks killed 2,996 people and injured over 6,000. According to the U.S. State Department’s annual Country Report on Terrorism 2015, 28,328 people around the world were victims of terrorists in that year. By killing terrorists with targeted drone strikes, the U.S. military disrupts and slows down terrorist organizations. In the War on Terror, it is difficult to determine how successful drone strikes have been. However, if we did nothing to fight or stop the terrorists they would be able to recruit, grow, and attack without fear. Despite potential downsides, drone strikes need to continue. It is impossible to estimate how many terrorist attacks have been stopped or how many lives have been saved due to successful drone attacks, but imagine the devastation of unrestrained terrorist

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

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been using drone strikes, against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. The U.S. Constitution requires that the government must go through a due process before making the decision of attacking and killing a number of people. Drone strikes are usually based on doubtful information, which takes the lives of innocent civilians. In the Middle East, civilians are being killed because of mistaken identity, and for just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Drone strikes are unlawful because they kill innocent civilians, violate due process, and result in blowback.

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.

A central theme in the book is examining the effect that the ruthless and unsympathetic drone strikes have in creating enemies of those tribal societies that under other circumstances would be neutral in the war against literalist terrorist organizations. Ahmed explains how these strikes not only lead to the massive amounts of innocent people, but that they also lead to trauma and resentment among the survivors who stage acts of retaliation which leads to more violence on behalf of the US military  - creating a brutal pattern of violence and oppression. For example, in one section, Ahmed describes an interview with Osama bin Laden in which he is quoted as saying, “If killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, let history witness that we are terrorists,” and in which bin Laden asserts that innocent Muslim civilians are being killed by the enemies of Islam; therefore the killing of their innocent civilians is justified, which he claims is “valid both religiously and logically.”  This framework works in tandem with the concepts that we have been examining in class