The Ethical Implications of the Current Government Drone Strike Polices Essay Example for Free

The Ethical Implications of the Current G overnment Dr angiotensin-converting enzyme Strike Polices Essay un restraintle aerial vehicles (UAVs) prototypic made their appearance in 1919 when Elmer Sperry, who also invented the gyroscope and autopilot, dishonoured a captured Ger populace station with the first UAV loaded down to with explosives((U. s. army unmanned, 2010). At the time this was a revolutionary artillery, but if we debauched forward 80 years from the time of that experiment, UAVs became a common and prolific part of the modern battlefield.Although thither is little debate as to the legality of their utilization on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, in recent years thither argon been much debate as to the role they should play in the roundr American tell Global War on terror or GWOT. spot the giving medication believes that it is performing in the opera hat interest of the American good deal, more and more scholars and foreign administrations ar e questioning the legality and ethical implications of the flow rate UAV polices governing strikes forthside of Iraq and Afghanistan.UAVs first saw action in the opening days of the GWOT in Afghanistan and during its first year of action UAVs attacked well-nigh 115 targets. This took part just shortly afterward Hellfire air-to-ground missiles were test fired and approved for intake on Predator UAVs. When the war began in Iraq in 2003 UAVs were on that point helping to overthrow Saddam Husseins governing body and destroy military targets. Drones were utilized in either a direct support role of ground troops in an overwatch capacity with the force to assist in command and control and the second in a hunter- turn thumbs downer capacity where the UAVs searched for targets (Callam, 2010).The role of UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan in these roles was seen no differently than the use of traditional aircraft, but their use was quickly expanded beyond what has traditional been seen as t he battlefield. The program and its policies drew criticism and questions related to planetary uprightness. It was not long after UAVs were weaponized that the CIA saw the potential of their use internationally. On November 3, 2002, after the Air Force rejected the mission over legal concerns, the CIA attacked a vehicle in Yemen with a UAV killing all six passengers (OConnell, 2010).The difference betwixt theses strikes and the ones conducted by the military lies in the fact that the military was striking targets in a recognized warzone enchantment the CIA was operating over the sovereign territory of anformer(a) nation. The UN Commission on humans Rights noted that this was through with(p) with the consent of Yemen and they had the, responsibility to protect their citizens against the excesses of non-Sate actors actions must be taken in accordance with international valet de chambre rights and humanitarian law.Further, in the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, the attack in Yemen constitutes a clear case of extrajudicial killing. (Jahangir, 2003). Another stark example of the drone program involves the hunt for Baitullah Mehsud who was the leader of a militant stem in Pakistan that attacked a police academy in that country. Five months later he was targeted and killed in an UAV attack in northwest Pakistan, but it was not the only strike carried bring out in an attempt to kill him.In fact, sixteen other strikes were used in a failed attempt to kill one man and in the parade between 207 and 321 other people were killed (Callam, 2010). The large difference in the number of people news storyedly killed is due in large part to the methodology used in determining how more people were killed (Beswick, 2010). Currently it is k right awayn that the United States has carried out UAV attacks in at least six countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.In addition to their expanded area of use their numbers have grown exponentia lly from 167 in 2002 to approximately 7,000 in 2010 (Deri,2012). The number of attacks has grown as well. According to the New American Foundation, between 2004 and 2007, 9 strikes were carried out in Pakistan. While that number has since fallen, it was as high as 118 strikes in 2010. The US military now trains more UAV pilots than traditional pilots and according Committee on Oversight and Government Reform no hidden entities are developing new manned aircraft (Deri,2012).While at that place is no question the use of these weapon systems is legal in countries where there is combat that meets the definition of fortify battle under international law such as Afghanistan, but their use in countries like Pakistan depends on how act of terrorism is classified. Previously, the governing body considered terrorism a crime and responded though diplomatic means and law enforcement procedures. It was not until the bombing of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that the government responded to terrorism with military action by firing missiles at targets in Sudan and Afghanistan.In this case the government invoked the right to self-importance defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (Maggs, 2005). after(prenominal) the government began the drone attacks over countries they were not in direct conflict with, the UN Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns submitted a report card to the UN Human Rights Council with concerns over, the lack of transparency insureing the legal framework and targeting choices. He requested information from the government and they declined to result any official solvent to the UN, but cited a statement made by a government legal adviser named Harold Hongju Koh.Mr. Hongju Koh verbalise in a speech to the Annual Meeting of the American order of International Law in 2010 that there are a number of legal bases to justify the use of targeted killing. He stated that, As a matter of international law, the United Stat es is in an armed conflict with al-foundation, as well as the Taliban and associated forces, in response to the horrific 9/11 attacks, and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defense under international law According to that statement, the government no longer believes terrorism is a crime, but now considers it as being part of an armed conflict.Acts of terrorism are not limited to the United States and understructure is active in other countries such as the United Kingdom, these other countries do not consider themselves at war with al-Qaeda. Sir Christopher Greenwood a British Judge on the International Court of Justice believes that, In the language of international law there is no basis for speaking of a war on Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group, for such a group cannot be a belligerent, it is merely a band of criminals, and to treat it as anything else risks distorting the law while giving that group a status which to some implies a degree of authentic ity (OConnell, 2010).Why would the government change it view that terrorism is a crime to an act that has taken place during armed conflict? If they still considered it a crime, the government actions would be dictated by the Constitution and international law. Specifically, the Fifth Amendment which states that no person shall be, deprived of lifespan, liberty, or property, without due process of law and International Human Rights laws which also prohibits the killing of individuals without any judicial process.Abiding by these laws would severally limit the governments ability to combat terrorism due to the remote locations and unfriendly locations many of the leaders operate out from. Being an American citizen does afford you any protection under the current counterterrorism target selection process either. Attorney General Eric Holder on March 5th of this year stated that if any Americans are working with al-Qaeda it is legal to place them on a capture/kill list.He stated that, Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court out front taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces, this is simply not accurate. Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process (Savage, 2012). According to the statement by Mr. Hongju Koh, there are two main justifications that the government is using to rationalize the program of targets killing.The first is that we are in armed conflict with al-Qaeda and the second is that we are acting in self defense. While there is no official definition of armed conflict, The International Law Association Committee on the Use of Force studied the court cases and laws surrounding this issue and found in their final report that there are two essential minimum criteria the existence of organized armed groups and tho se groups must be, prosecute in fighting of some intensity(Gardam, 2010).Al-Qaeda has a weak command and control complex body part and its organization has been described as nothing more than a diffuse network of affiliated groups, rule more by ideology than anything else(Brahimi, 2010). The government has also stated time and again stated that al-Qaeda command and control is diminished and while dangerous are a weak organization. These facts lead to the mop up that al-Qaeda is in fact not an organized armed group and the War on Terror is not so must a war against a organization, but a war of ideas as stated by Paul Wolfowitz former Deputy Defense Secretary.The second justification is that we are acting in self defense under Article 51, which allows the use of military force in response to an attack. Mary Ellen OConnell a leading international law researcher pointed out in her paper titled Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones, that The International Court of Justice ruled that th e right to self-defense must only result from, an attack that involves a significant amount of force (OConnell, 2010). Also, when acting in self defense, the level of force used must take into account such things as positive damage and the loss of innocent life.As shown in the hunt for Baitullah Mehsud, little respect for human life has been shown on behalf of the government. While terrorist attacks can be spectacular and attention grabbing, they are never sustained actions involving a significant amount of force, therefore the drone strikes should not be considered actions taken in self defense. In conclusion it would seem that the government use of drones overseas fails to meet the standards for self defense or actions taken during armed conflict.It would seem as indicated by the UNs report on Human Rights that large parts international community question the legality of targeted killings by UAVs. The United States is leading the way in both drone technology and it use around th e world, and they are failing to lead the way and set an example. In the future the government may find other countries using drones in ways they regard as illegal using the United States prior conduct as part of their justification.