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.
Drone Strikes
The use of remote-controlled airplanes known as drones has become increasingly common. Although surely not the only country to use them, the United States has gotten the most attention. The attention is due mostly because of the Hellfire missiles those drones have been dropping in areas of Pakistan and other countries in the greater Middle East area. While the legal grounds for these strikes in general is not on firm footing in the eyes of many people, there are those that assert emphatically that drone strikes on people who are United States citizens is too much and should not happen. Such was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki and his fate. While the United States' stated reasons for assassinating al-Awlaki are fairly straightforward, some suggest his status as a United States citizen afforded him due process and thus the drone strike should never have happened.
Analysis
If Osama bin Laden had been killed with a drone strike (he was not), there are probably not a lot of people that would openly complain about it. However, al-Awlaki was a different sort of case. The complication, as inferred in the introduction, is that al-Awlaki...
It is true that he was engaging in war-like behaviors against the United States and its allies and it is also true that a lot of (or even most) of these activities did not occur on United States soil. Even so, some assert that al-Awlaki should have been captured, if possible, and brought to trial. Some people made the same argument for bin Laden and others before they were taken out. However, there are many other people that demarcate criminal trials and acts of war. Those that place al-Awlaki in the second of those two echelons would assert that since he was taking up war against the United States via Al Qaeda and/or supporting those that due, this gave the United States a clear right to eliminate him and his support of terrorist activities through any means they saw fit. Another complication involved in this is that al-Awlaki was not acting at the behest of a nation state. Much like other terrorist acts, pinning the acts on a single nation is less than easy to do (Shane, 2015). Indeed, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis but there has been no concerted effort to punish Saudi Arabia for that (Shenon, 2016). At the same time,…
References
Ackerman, S. (2014). 41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: U.S. drone strikes -- the facts on the ground. the Guardian. Retrieved 21 May 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
Greenspan, J. (2013). Remembering the 1988 Lockerbie Bombing - History in the Headlines.
history.com. Retrieved 21 May 2016, from http://www.history.com/news/remembering-
the-1988-lockerbie-bombing
2016, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/due-process-for-terrorists/
Shane, S. (2015). The Lessons of Anwar al-Awlaki. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 21 May 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html
The Guardian. Retrieved 21 May 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/12/911-commission-saudi-arabia-hijackers
Drone Strikes Target drone Legality International Law and Drone Strikes Obama Administration Drone attacks in Pakistan Drone Strikes in Yemen Drone Strikes in Somalia The legality of the drone strikes is a disputed matter. A major challenge to the international law and the international system is the U.S. policy of using drones aerially to carry out target killings. According to some reports U.S. drone strikes have killed almost 4,000 people since 2002 in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.
Ethics of Drone Strikes The increasing use of drones in combat has raised a number of different ethical issues. Drones are typically used to bomb foreign territory. The operators control the drones remotely, often from locations in the United States. Working with equipment not unlike a video game, they fly the drones into combat or ambush situations, where they then carry out their missions, often from thousands of miles away. Some
Drone Policy The current use of drones to fight terrorism appears to be yielding negative results to U.S. administration. The recent drone attack on families and friends heading to a wedding in Yemen just cements the worrying trend on the negative effects of current drone policy adopted by the government. Worse still, the Obama administration is drastically escalating targeted killings by using drones as a core attribute of its counterterrorism policy
Terrorist Targets and DronesDrone 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
Robotic drones have been in use by the United States as a strategy of attack against terrorist groups for several years now, beginning in the administration of George W. Bush. They have been effective and yet there is and has been controversy with the use of these robotic technologies. This paper will point to the criticisms and the supportive positions as well. In this paper the writer uses opinion articles
Or, as Saletan points out, those three elements "by deduction, are the due process test" (2011). But this ought to leave a bad taste in one's mouth because all three of these elements can be manipulated to violate one's due process right. "Which leaves us with an awkward bottom line. If the target is a suspected terrorist, "imminence" can be redefined to justify killing him. If the weapon is a drone,