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 (Wojtanik, 2014). Recently, the government started revealing much of its drone policy like in public statements by various top officials. Although the public has welcomed this information, it has failed to address completely public concerns. The number of civilian casualties coupled with a dearth of clarity about whom the government considers a civilian in these circumstances has painted the drone policy a negative image. These concerns, together with the absence of public information revolving around the policy, demand the administration to explain the policy and its legal ground.
Today, individuals are killed easily by pushing a button craft. For this reason, the legality of drones has become a controversial matter in most world countries. My contention is that drones are an illegitimate weapon for war. Due to the drone strikes, not only militants but also noncombatants are killed. During the Obama administration, drone attacks killed between 900 and 1200 persons with about seven hundred were civilians. Therefore, in the specified duration, the civilian fatality was estimated at 34%. This is a colossal mortality rate. The drone attacks have given more damage to civilian population than militants. The following study disproves the U.S. Drone policy with the argument that Drone strikes are posing an immense threat to humanity.
The Drone Strikes
Violates Sovereignty
It is a violation of sovereignty, has issues with legality, and causes tensions (Rogers, & Hill, 2014). CIA drone attacks on targets have led to far-reaching civilian casualties than the American government has realized. Sovereign nations support their long-standing perspective that they have not consented to the remote-exhibited missiles campaign that forms the centerpiece of the American strategy to eliminate militants. The drone policy entails the use of force on the territory of another nation, hence, is a violation of another nation's sovereignty.
Rebuttal
On the contrary, proponents of the drone policy argue that drones are not a violation of national sovereignty. This dimension is two-pronged. First, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) legalizes the use of drones because it allows other nations to use force in a sovereign territory where there is a condition of ongoing conflict. This means that the drone force is being used against a "shared enemy" (Rogers, & Hill, 2014). For instance, the drone strike in 2004 killed Nek Muhammad Wazir, the leader of Pashtun terror gang, who is alleged to have posed a significant threat to Pakistan. Secondly, the way the surgical attacks are carried violates the law. The surgical strikes of the predator are not by both the IHL principle of proportionality as well as that of discrimination, which is stipulated in the Geneva Conventions 1948. Discrimination holds that a nation or state using the force differentiate between civilians and military. In the meantime, the proportionality clause restricts the permissible degree of force based on the threat posed. Also, this principle requires that targeting decisions in military activities avoid excessive civilian casualties that relate to the projected military advantage.
High Civilian Casualty
A civilian casualty is a major issue associated with drone strikes. The primary source of public controversy regarding the drone policy is who is being killed in the strikes. Studies illustrate wildly varying estimates on how many civilians have been killed by militants. For instance, Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institute estimates that for every one militant killed, ten civilians are also killed. Looking at a recent report released by the CIA, since 2009, not a single civilian has been killed by the drones. More so, the New American Foundation conducted an in-depth analysis of drone attacks and reports that between 2005 and 2020, drone attacks killed between 900 and 1200 persons with serious civilian casualty (Wojtanik, 2014). The numbers of civilians being killed in drone attacks raises two serious issues for the people following the drone policy. The first relates...
Physical Security in Public AreasAbstract/SummaryThis paper examines the effectiveness of physical security measures in public areas, by looking at spaces such as schools, airports, stadiums, and malls. It discusses current strategies, including surveillance cameras, metal detectors, and access control systems. It also examines the need customized approaches since all spaces are different. Schools require security that balances safety with an open, welcoming environment, whereas airports can use stricter, more invasive
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now