Bypassing Due Process with Drone Assassinations

Terrorist Targets and Drones

Drone strikes have often resulted in civilian casualties, which raises questions about the legality of such actions under international law—but there is also the risk that the United States will become too reliant on drones and other forms of military force, rather than addressing the root causes of terrorism. For both of these reasons, I believe that the killing of terrorist targets using drones by the US is not a justified legal and/or moral tactic to combat terrorism in the world.

From a legal standpoint, the US government’s authority to kill terrorist targets using drones is far from clear. The US Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the power to order such strikes, and international law is similarly vague on the issue, other there may be valid occasions for drone strike usage—such as when the US is invited by a country to intervene for the sake of self-defense and safety against terrorist combatants within its borders (Delahunty & Yoo, 2001; Heyns et al., 2016). Still, even then there is a dubious cloud surrounding presidential authorization of drone strikes, and in any case a strong position can be made that drone strikes are illegal under both US and international law (Breau & Aronsson, 2012).

There are also significant moral concerns about the use of drones. Critics argue that drone strikes often result in civilian casualties, which is morally indefensible. Furthermore, some argue that the use of drones creates a “culture of death” that makes it more likely for future conflicts to turn violent, and that drone strikes are supra-jurisdictional—meaning they put the president “above the law” when he (as in President Obama’s case) calls accused terrorists “fair game” and authorizes their assassination by drone, regardless of the fact that the accused has had no trial, no due process, and no opportunity to defend himself against accusations of terrorism (Democracy Now!, 2013). The US can pretend to uphold inalienable rights like due process—but when it acts in violation of those rights by authorizing drone strike assassinations on people who have never had their day in court, the US undermines its own principles and gives a horrible example of hypocrisy to its own citizens as well as those of the rest of the world. It essentially says that laws protecting rights will only be applied when the president feels it is right. Worse, Congress appears to be fine with this abuse of power and never does anything to hold such a president accountable. In fact, such presidential decisions should be grounds for impeachment and arrest.

Given the serious legal and moral concerns about drone strikes, it is difficult to justify their use as a tactic to combat terrorism. While they may be effective in some instances, the moral risks involved are simply too high to justify their continued use. Moral blowback can lead to more terrorism and more attacks against the US. Leaders should really stop to consider this if nothing else. When one considers that, according to a study by the New America Foundation (2015), between 2004 and 2014, there were 2,372 reported drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and that these strikes killed an estimated 3,040 people, of whom around 10% were civilians, it is actually surprising that there has not been more blowback than has been seen in cases like Nidal Hasan’s shooting at Ft. Hood.

Proponents of drone strikes argue that they are a necessary and effective way to combat terrorism, while critics contend that they are illegal and immoral. However, there are serious legal and moral concerns about their use that must be considered: it bypasses due process, can cause the deaths of innocents, and can lead to significant blowback.