Poli 480
Chad Henry
11/20/13
Drones
and Sovereignty
Does the use of drone strikes in countries, with or
without the support of the host country, violate sovereignty and international
law? If a country is unable or unwilling to target groups which engage in
hostile actions towards the US and its allies, from within their borders, can
the US then use drones in order to target these said groups?
September 30, 2011 AQAP (Al
Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula) senior member and US citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki
was killed by a US airstrike in Yemen. While the Pentagon has yet to claim
responsibility for the attack, extensive US counter terrorism efforts have
taken place in Yemen as well as Somalia in the post 9/11 years. This
extrajudicial killing of a US citizen has raised questions about the legal
justification of targeted killings. While the laws of armed conflict as well as
the principles of international humanitarian law state that anyone who is
engaged in armed conflict is subject to being killed or captured, the scope of
the current conflict makes the language very ambiguous. Because Al Qaeda as
well as the Taliban operates in multiple countries, combat operations against
the groups also take place in multiple countries thus expanding the scope of the
conflict.
As the nature of
conflict has changed from large scale conflicts in which large armies engage
each other in massive military operations, to guerilla warfare and counter
insurgency intensive conflicts, the weapons used to wage war have also changed.
The use of armed but unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) also known as drones, has
become a new feature of warfare in the current conflict. While UAVs are just
another weapons in the Pentagons arsenal the fact that they are remotely
piloted from thousands of miles away from the United States and may or may not
be operated by nonmilitary personnel (CIA), has raised further questions as to
the legality of their usage.
CIA Drone Strikes Pakistan 2004–2013:
Total strikes: 378
Total killed: 2,528-3,644
Civilians killed: 416-948
Children killed: 168-200
Injured: 1,125-1,545
Total strikes: 378
Total killed: 2,528-3,644
Civilians killed: 416-948
Children killed: 168-200
Injured: 1,125-1,545
22.8%-37.5% civilian deaths
Drone Strikes in
Yemen 2002–2013:
Confirmed drone strikes: 55-65
Confirmed drone strikes: 55-65
Total
killed: 269-389
Civilians killed: 21-56
Children killed: 5
Injured: 67-150
Civilians killed: 21-56
Children killed: 5
Injured: 67-150
5.3%-20.8% civilian deaths
Due
to the continued civilian deaths in Pakistan as, well as in Yemen, Drone
strikes are not only extremely unpopular, but have also led to an increase in the
radicalization of the local populations. This glaring problem shows that even
while effective at eliminating targets, the drones do more to serve as a
recruitment tool for very groups they are used to target.
"Mounting Criticism Sparks Push to
Move Lethal Program to Military From CIA" March 21, 2013 The Wall
Street Journal
Mark Bowden. "The Killing Machines - Mark
Bowden". The
Atlantic. 2013-09-22
David Zucchino (March
18, 2012). "Stress of combat reaches drone
crews". Los Angeles Times
"UN News Centre, "UN rights
expert voices concern over use of unmanned drones by United States", 28
October 2009". Un.org. 2009-10-28
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/target.pdf
Chad, I like your topic very much, you have great material to write a really persuasive essay about how harmful drones are and their effectiveness at the same time. I think it would be very helpful if you could find evidence and/or testimonials about what citizens from Yemen and Pakistan are saying about drones (if they know about drones) and the leaders of those countries are saying about the civilian deaths. It is good to have the perspective from both sides to better argue the statistics you have shown on your outline.
ReplyDeleteHey Chad, I also agree with what Hannah said. You may want to examine the domestic precedent President Obama set with this, and how he justified it. Also, maybe what it may hint at for the future, and if the Supreme Court or Congress have made any definitive steps to limit the use of this technology regarding Americans in the future, or if the door for more extreme precedents remain open to the executive branch in the future. I am really interested in your topic, and believe it is a very important issue when it comes to the future of the U.S. and the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteWe sopke about drones earlier but I finally found the Singer article I was looking for.The topic of these readings is US policy regarding unmanned aircraft systems. Singers article gave a bare bones look at major controversies surrounding the use of drones domestically. He notes that their use domestically has been condemned by both sides of the political spectrum here in the US once the AUS industry sought to pass a bill allowing them access to domestic air space. The biggest concerns were safety and privacy, as well as the ability to keep the technology out of the hands of the wrong people such as criminals and terrorists. The industry produced a vague self-regulatory code that left critics unsatisfied, and with more questions along with many left unanswered. The article ended with a reminder that one can't stop new technology. Instead the society around the new technology must adapt to it, and adapt quickly.
ReplyDelete