The Case Against Drones : Technology

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

In Bradley Strawser’s “Moral Predators,” Strawser argues that “we are obligated to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) weapon systems if it can be shown that their use does not significantly reduce a warfighter’s operational capability.” By their very nature UAVs evoke many ethical questions most of which are addressed by Strawser, who stresses “there is no downside to UAVs.” I would argue there are certainly some downsides to this technology. The aim of this paper is to provide legitimate moral objections to using drones in warfare.

While the Exclusionary Rule sounds gratifying, assuring that evidence obtained illegally won’t be submitted it also seems to be flawed. Starting with the 2 exceptions of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine: 1.) If the police had an independent source of knowledge of the evidence aside from the fruits of the illegal search, then the doctrine will not exclude the discovered evidence. 2.) If discovery of the evidence was "inevitable", the

Byman’s tone in this article can be described as defensive. In his argument, Byman attempts to refute the arguments of many Americans that maintain that drones should be eliminated. This is demonstrated in Byman’s response to public criticism that using drones creates more terrorists. He states, “critics...

Another statistic Shan uses is, “... the United States spends about 6 times more on prisons and the drug war than on education (as of 2012).” (Source A) This alarming fact is another way in which statistics helped readers realize why Khalsa may seem disapproving towards the war. When reading Khalsa’s articles, readers may question whether Khalsa is inclined to oppose the war because of his personal beliefs, but the newspaper maintains it credibility by assuming that Khalsa’s opinions are based off of statistics that cannot be

As the country goes through its tenth year of the war on terror one can look back and see some of the policy differences that has plagued this country when, as a nation, our young men are sent to war. Everything, in this author’s view needs to be on the table, and transparent. Of course, troops strength, strategy, and general war plans should be kept from the enemy, the need of informing our own people has been a tight rope that is not easy to balance on for any one person. This was especially true of the “enhanced interrogations” used by the Bush administration at the beginning of the War on Terror. What this paper plans to do is to explain the four greatest

The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the United States

When the topic of drones is brought up, some may think they are not among us and are objects of the future, while others may have one that they’ve built themselves and put to use already. Drones are being talked about more and more but not necessarily all for good reasons. The reading titled “From the Eyes of a Drone” by Tomas van Houtryve touches upon how drones affect surveillance, photography, and use for weapons. In a BBC article, “Drones: What Are They and How Do They Work?” the author goes into specific detail on how the United States is planning to use drones for the military. If regular drone use becomes a normality in society, it is true that amazing photography will be a positive outcome but what about privacy? Drones can aid the military as well, but if they are released for the general public to use on the daily things may get out of control. While drones can impact several aspects of life positively, they can create even more harm than one may think.

The two positions argue whether or not civil liberties should be reduced in order to fight terrorism. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that in certain cases, civil liberties must be cut back in order to stop terrorism. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that the government only uses terrorism as a guise to reduce civil liberties. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that civil liberties should not be reduced in order to help fight

Who is then responsible for the death of civilians? It is not an easy question to answer because the person who operates drone is “middle man” taking orders from the government. Also, the president does not make every decision when to strike because the CIA have power to make decision whether to strike or not without presidential approval. There was no case in which anyone was convicted of a drone strike that killed civilians and it is no surprise because the authorities would probably not openly admit to making a mistake.

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

All of these theories have obvious drawbacks that keep them from producing an objective answer to the morality of defense engineering. They are only able to give a scaffolding that one must build judgement from. Each person’s judgment will be strife with personal biases that will put more weight on different sides of the issues and affect their moral

Robert Greenwald’s documentary Unmanned: America's Drone War focuses on the effects of America’s drone operations on the citizens of Middle Eastern countries, such as Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, while also offering insight into the public opinion of people in those Middle Eastern countries on America’s drone policy. The film seeks to convey that the operations carried out by the U.S.A in Middle Eastern countries are callous and irresponsible. The film features interviews from many citizens and leaders from Middle Eastern focusing on the impact that drone operations have had on families and communities, making the assertion that the majorly of those killed by American drone strikes have been nonmilitants showing, and calling for a more humanized approach to drone operations by American leaders.

The U.S government started using unarmed drones in 2000 to monitor Afghanistan when the country was at war. The drone program was expanded when the September 11 attacks happened as a way to counteract the terrorists. Drones were used a surveillance but this time most drones are armed with missiles to weaken and destroy terrorist groups power. The death toll from the expansion of the program, according to the human rights group Reprieve, found that in 2014 that US killed 1,147 people in Pakistan and Yemen in the course of targeting only 41 men. This has caused a debate on whether to continue to use drones or to destroy the programs. A large amount of

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