Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Terrorist Targets and Drones
Drone strikes have often resulted in civilian casualties, which raises questions about the legality of such actions under international lawbut 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 governments 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 usagesuch 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...…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 Hasans 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…
References
Breau, S., & Aronsson, M. (2012). Drone attacks, international law, and the recording ofcivilian casualties of armed conflict. Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev., 35, 255.
Delahunty, R. J., & Yoo, J. C. (2001). The President's Constitutional Authority toConduct Military Operations Against Terrorist Organizations and the Nations that Harbor or Support Them. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 25, 487.
Democracy Now! (2013). Why Did the United States Kill a Denver-Born Teenager witha Drone Strike in Yemen? YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21XhdpHOjRY
Heyns, C., Akande, D., Hill-Cawthorne, L., & Chengeta, T. (2016). The international lawframework regulating the use of armed drones. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(4), 791-827.
New American Foundation. (2015). Drone strikes: cause or effect. Retrieved from https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/in-the-news/drone-strikes-cause-or-effect/
Due Process and the Significance of Interpretation The concept of "Due Process" is a uniquely American one, the significance of which has changed as much as has the societal and political times of the American nation. Today, some critics argue that Due Process is a thing of the past, what with the passing and signing into law of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes the military to arrest and detain
In modern criminal procedure and practice, the Sixth Amendment also provides specific requirements of police, such as where criminal defendants express the desire to consult legal counsel. Irrespective of whether or not such a request precedes or follows the common recitation of Miranda warnings by arresting authorities, the Supreme Court has now long-regarded any expression of request for legal counsel as the immediate cut-off point of any further questioning (Colon, 2004;
The goal of modern constitutional criminal procedure is to define principles of law enforcement that protect citizens from government intrusions that are unreasonable in their effect on personal liberties, while simultaneously facilitating the reasonable enforcement of law and protection of society by prosecuting and punishing criminal conduct. One of the first principles in early American constitutional history was the idea that it was more beneficial to society and its citizens to
This 'law and order' approach, however, will tend to invoke discomfort amongst civil libertarians, who will object to the danger that this poses to the constitution. Accordingly, we consider the Due Process Model of criminal justice, which U.S. Legal (2010) identifies as a mode of administration which emphasizes procedural regularity, adherence to the terms of the Constitution and meaningful commitment to the notion of innocent until proven guilty. As USLegal
Due Process and the 14th Amendment Which of the protections available to criminal offenders through the Bill of Rights do not currently apply to the states? "Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment originally only applied in federal court. However, in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rights guaranteed by the text of the Fourth Amendment…apply equally in state courts
Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment is Important to Me Adopted in 1868 to the U.S. Constitution during the Reconstruction era the Fourteenth amendment is known as one of the three Reconstruction Amendments. Of these three, the Fourteenth is the most complex and resulted in the greatest number of unforeseen effects. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment States "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or