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...
Force: Examining the Most Relevant Articles The article "The Four Functions of Force" by Robert Art details exactly that: the main purposes for using force in a given situation. Those purposes are as follows: defense, deterrence, compellence and swagger. While these reasons are indeed distinct, as Art demonstrates, it can be difficult from time to determine the exact purpose that a particular state has selected. In this sense, the main
Manage Use of Force Ethical Issues HOW TO MANAGE USE-OF-FORCE ETHICAL ISSUES This objective of this study is to examine how criminal justice and private security managers and executives are addressing use-of-force issues from an ethical point-of-view. There is a growing problem in the United States with law enforcement officer's use-of-force under the color of law and their authority requiring that criminal justice and private security managers understand the ethics in relation
Force and Wars on Terrorism The objective of this work is to consider that as one of the governing principles of the United Nations, the UN Charter Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force in international relations, but its Article 51 permits the use of for e as an act of self-defense against any illegal use of force in violation of Article 2(4). Contemporary wars on terrorism are often justified
Police use of force There is no single globally accepted definition of use of force by police officers. The National Institute of Justice, which is a subsidiary of the Justice Department concurs with this. This leaves the approximately 18,000 police agencies in America with the leeway to formulate their own policies regarding the use of force. Some agencies may address the issue while some may not. The Justice Department has however
The young man had struck the officer repeatedly before continuing to resist arrest, and finally being killed. The court found in favor of the officer. Hopkins v. Andaya is a similar case in which an officer was struck repeatedly and ignore despite several warnings. In both these cases, self-defense necessitated the use of firearms. In the case of Tennessee v Garner, on the other hand, a suspect was fleeing. According to
S. In April 2005, where there is a description of how a cell search took place there as per his version. "The guards secured his hands behind his back and, while he was so restrained, the guards picked him up and slammed his body and his head into the steel bunk in his cell. They then threw him on the floor and continued to pound his body and bang his
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