Eye in the Sky Film

The 2015 feature film Eye in the Sky addresses the ethics of modern warfare and specifically the use of unmanned devices like drones. In Eye in the Sky, the title refers to advanced surveillance drones that are used to monitor the actions of key terrorist targets. Using facial recognition, the drones help senior military officers from both Britain and the United States identify and track their suspects and plan targeted attacks. Moreover, the film shows how senior military officers perform quantitative risk assessments to minimize civilian casualties while pursuing overarching military objectives. One of the key ethical and legal issues Eye in the Sky covers relates to Constitutional rights and in particular, Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful surveillance. The film shows that Fourth Amendment rights may not apply to American citizens abroad. Eye in the Sky also shows that the war on terrorism and the USA PATRIOT Act have altered the legal interpretations of the Fourth Amendment. Cases like those depicted in the film clearly invoke the USA PATRIOT Act because of their impact on counterterrorism policy and the goals of the war on terrorism globally.
In fact, even had the drones been used on American soil, the military would have been acting within PATRIOT Act parameters to collect intelligence specifically to “protect against international terrorism,” (ACLU, 2018). The use of surveillance drones is not necessarily constitutional, but it does reflect the prevailing powers of the government to usurp Fourth Amendment rights in the name of counterterrorism. Otherwise, the government and the military need warrants to conduct this type of surveillance. The surveillance drones were infiltrating private property, and were being used without a warrant—clear violations of the Fourth Amendment. Yet at the same time, the surveillance drones were being used on foreign soil where the American Constitution does not apply or have legal grounds no matter how solid the diplomatic ties may be between the United States and Kenya. Americans in Kenya would have no “reasonable expectation of privacy,” unless Kenyan law provides a similar protection to foreign nationals (Sulamsy & Yoo, 2008, p. 1224). The reasonableness standard is also considerably more lax in matters involving national security (Sulamsy & Yoo, 2008).
Working together with British military and foreign intelligence agencies does enhance the credibility of American operatives and military officers, even as they bend the rules as much as possible in order to secure what they believe to be desired outcomes. The process by which their decision-making takes place does not consider Constitutional law at all; not just because of operating on Kenyan soil but also because of operating with another sovereign nation with its own rules on electronic surveillance. As Sulamsy & Yoo (2008) also point out, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the PATRIOT Act have dramatically changed the ground rules under which foreign soil surveillance takes place. There was, in the case illustrated in Eye in the Sky, sufficient probable cause for the surveillance. In fact, the PATRIOT Act effectively diminishes the standards for probable cause. Whether or not the attacks were justifiable is another matter entirely.
Eye in the Sky shows how law enforcement and intelligence agencies work together to achieve common counterterrorism goals. The film also shows how the PATRIOT Act has superseded Constitutional law and the Fourth Amendment, removing barriers to using electronic surveillance on foreign territory and on private property with sufficient probable cause but no warrant. Probable cause did exist, but even if it hadn’t, the use of the drones would not have presented a serious legal challenge when it involved suspects known to international counterterrorism intelligence coalitions. Thus, the Fourth Amendment was violated, but it was violated in a way that conforms to the new legal precedents established under the ongoing provisions of the PATRIOT Act, and also in accordance with international counterterrorism procedural standards.





References

ACLU (2018). https://www.aclu.org/other/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act
Hood, G., Director, (2015). Eye in the Sky. Feature Film. Entertainment One.
Salamsky, G. & Yoo, J. (2008). Katz and the war on terrorism. UC Davis Law Review 2008(41): https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/41/3/intl-crime-terrorism/41-3_Sulmasy-Yoo.pdf