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,...

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…