The Truth Behind Cia Drone Strikes

The CIA and the U.S. military have been using drones for more than 100 years, but only in the past 10 years the public has realized how powerful this technology is. Drones should be used to combat terrorism in Afghanistan because they are a step into the future for warfare. Drones are some of the most used technologies that are used to combat terrorism in foreign countries, and there is a reason for that. Drones are used to spy, track, and assassinate high priority terrorists. Regular ways of warfare are not working in Afghanistan and Pakistan because the terrorists are very good at hiding, and looking for them on foot is a not only a tedious job, but it is also extremely dangerous. Just like with any new technology, especially technology that kills, there are always controversies. Although there is problems with the current drone technology and the drone program in general, all these problems can be easily fixed. There are many more positive aspects to the drone program that overwhelm the negative aspects of it.

Byman continues with this argument, stating that drones achieve their intended goal without risking American lives. Because drones only require a remote control to pilot, they do not put a member of the US Air Force at risk. This not only reduces the amount of military deaths in foreign countries, but it allows drones to travel to places that are deemed too dangerous for actual US pilots. Byman states that in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, “the government exerts little or no control over remote areas, which means that it is highly dangerous to go after militants hiding out there. Worse yet, in Pakistan and Yemen, the governments have at times cooperated with militants” (Byman 2). The majority of the time, sending in an actual military force is simply too dangerous. Instead of sending people, the US military can send robots.

This statement is in fact a myth, drone strikes ARE legal under United Nations Charter 51 which states the strikes are legal if allowed by the country’s government, or if the group being targeted is responsible for an act of aggression and they can’t be controlled[Source J]. Just to give some examples Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have all been recipients of drone strikes and they all consent to these because they have terrorist organizations within their borders such as the Islamic State, and Al Qaeda.

Why do we kill people who are killing people to show that killing people is wrong? This familiar bumper sticker reflects a fundamental issue America faces as it strives to eliminate the terrorist threat around the world with the use of unmanned combat aerial vehicles or drones. The use of drones in the attack on terrorists has dramatically increased in the past decade and shows no sign of slowing down. Drones have long been used to spy on foreign lands, but it is only since 1995 that they have been outfitted with weapons and advanced sensors that make possible the targeted strikes we see today. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the resulting War on Terror, the use of drones for attack purposes has increased dramatically. They are designed and used to hunt down individuals or small groups and eliminate them without the need for sending in soldiers. Drone strikes are effective in efficiently eliminating terrorists without risk to American lives and therefore reduces terrorist activity around the world. However, there

According to procon.org, drone strikes used by the U.S. break international law. Targeted individuals of drone strikes must pose a threat that only lethal force can prevent. Simply suspecting of helping a terrorist organization in an area where terrorists are known to be there and bombing it is illegal. These drones are breaking so many laws without punishment that there needs to be more enforcement of the laws that are already in place. What is the point in having a law if you are not going to enforce it. The U.S. needs to stop breaking this international law, or we could have a huge target on our

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

Shortly after September 11, 2001, former president George W. Bush declared an international “war on terror.” He then sent troops to threatening countries such as Afghanistan; these troops personally conducted operations in order to honorably defend our country. Fast forward eight years and insert current president Barack Obama who continues the campaign against terrorism with a different approach. Instead of using real soldiers on the ground to fight terrorism he is essentially using robots. Obama’s counter-terrorism approach consists of targeted drone strikes where UAV’s are used to assassinate suspected leaders of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile these strikes don’t always work, and they can hurt innocent

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 Warfare; Summary and Overview This essay consists of a thorough analysis and overview on the book titled Drone Warfare by John Kaag and Sarah Kreps. Drone Warfare covers the political, juridical, and ethical aspects of remotely piloted aircrafts known as drones. The book touches on the political ramifications that the United States’ drone program causes and the general public’s opinion on drones. Drone Warfare also talks about the relationship between the drone program and international laws.

The CIA was authorized to kill anywhere in the world without any Presidential approval after President Bush signed a Memorandum of Notification. As quoted from Background on Drones, “When the first strike occurred from the Predator on February 4th, 2002, it fired on a group that was believed to have Osama bin Laden included, but when the targets were all killed, it turned out they were just civilians.” Since the attacks on 9/11, over 95% of all of the non-battlefield targeted killings were conducted by drones. On November 16-17 an event by the name of the Global Drone Summit will bring together people from across the world who discuss the strategies to put an end to the proliferation of drones used for

The government side might object my perspective, arguing that the drone strikes is completely justify because this individual might not be mentally impaired and he or she has consented on their behavior, so the drone strikes are not considered as cruel and unusual. I do not agree with this objection. It is important to take an individualized consideration in the circumstances of each case to determine whether the punishment is excessive, contended by Justice Kennedy in Roper v. Simmons. By taking into individualized considerations, trials are required to discuss whether the punishment is excessive. For example, in our case, this person might be threatened and manipulated by another individual, making certain decision after subornation, or making

The general argument made by Natalie Dalziel in her 2014 article “Drone Strikes: Ethics and Strategy” is that U.S. drone strikes have many “strategic consequences” (6). More specifically, she argues that drone strikes “incite” terrorist attacks by “targeting the symptom of the problem rather than the cause” (Dalziel 6). She writes that U.S. drone strikes destabilize and “undermine the legitimacy of governments” where drone strikes occur by turning people to groups like al Qaeda “out of anger” over their government's failure to prevent drone strikes (Dalziel 5).  In addition, she writes that methods like the “signature strike and double-tap” increase the number of civilian casualties which leads to more “retaliation for the strikes” (Dalziel

Unlike drone attacks, using ground troops can result in less unnecessary casualties. When a bomb is dropped it kills not only the target but the people around them. Lives of innocent people can be saved if we had a more accurate point of view. Within 5 months, “nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.”(Cite #1) Sending soldiers can significantly lower the percentage of innocents killed. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”(Cite #1) Right now, American soldiers are safe flying drones from thousands of miles away. Sending troops risks American blood but fewer accidental deaths that leave families

Drones are an effective counter insurgency tool deployed extensively throughout the world, especially by clandestine intelligence organizations often with the help of the country’s respective Air Force. Not only do they serve as an effective weapon, they minimize human

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