In the article, “Is Obama’s Drone War Moral?”, Matt Peterson argues that the lack of transparency surrounding the number of drone strikes and resulting casualties undermines Obama’s administration efforts to justify the targeted killing program. He states that the administration refusal to detail individual strikes makes it impossible for the public to assess the morality of the program. He attempts to support his points by examining the standards for carrying out violence in self-defense and by explaining how the policies and practices put in place by Obama’s administration fails to uphold these standards. This paper will evaluate the strength and weakness of Mr. Peterson’s analysis to determine whether the conclusions the author draw are
To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...
Those who oppose the use of drones in warfare claims it violates international law. They believe that the strikes have no justification therefore violating international law. (Moskowitz) They claim that the benefits of the usage of drones do not outweigh the cons of using drones. The opposition claim that civilian casualties make up 2-10% of total fatalities from drones firing on wrong targets or the civilians are collateral damage.(Globalresearch) The dissentient think it causes more unrest than peace in some regions due to the collateral damage caused to buildings and civilians and is another sign of American arrogance. (ABC News)Even though their points are valid, these reasons do not warrant the cease of drone activity.
Laws exist to protect life and property; however, they are only as effective as the forces that uphold them. War is a void that exists beyond the grasps of any law enforcing agency and It exemplifies humankind's most desperate situation. It is an ethical wilderness exempt from civilized practices. In all respects, war is a primitive extension of man. Caputo describes the ethical wilderness of Vietnam as a place "lacking restraints, sanctioned to kill, confronted by a hostile country and a relentless enemy, we sank into a brutish state." Without boundaries, there is only a biological moral c...
A. The “We Beat and Killed People.” Newsweek. 13 May 2002 - 24. Print.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This George Santayana quote speaks volumes about what should be taken into consideration when making a decision with a lot riding on it. If nothing else, this quote serves as the proper bridge, or connection, between Robert McNamara’s Eleven Lessons in “The Fog of War” and the ongoing conflict in Libya. In “The Fog of War”, Robert McNamara breaks down 11 vital lessons he learned about war from the Vietnam War. When looking at the current Libyan situation, these lessons can be similarly applied, and thus avoid any potentially costly mistakes like the ones made in Vietnam. McNamara himself has stated that those particular 11 lessons were intended to be applied to war in its most general meaning. However, some lessons are certainly more applicable than others. The four lessons in particular that stand out are, “empathize with your enemy”, “proportionality should be a guideline to war”, “belief and seeing are both often wrong” and “be prepared to re-examine your reasoning.” These four lessons need to be applied in Libya to ensure that history’s mistakes are not needlessly repeated.
Withlock, Craig. "Drone Strikes Killing More Civilians than U.S. Admits, Human Rights Groups Say." Washingtonpost.com. Washington Post, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. .
In her essay Can U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants, Jennifer Vanklausen explores the ethical question of our government’s policy to hold American citizens suspected of terrorist activity against the United States as enemy combatants, withholding their constitutional rights as provided in the fifth and sixth amendments, during an undeclared war.
I searched a lot to find an article that talks about the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The article by Peter Fitzgerald “The Invasion of War” explores the reasons of the war between Kuwait and Iraq, considering that they were great allies in the past. He suggests that the differences between these two countries were economic and diplomatic. In the past the two were great allies and they greatly assisted each other during wars providing a protective edge in their territories. Their friendship was brokeup when the Iraq government realized that they owed them billions. Although at that particular time after the Iraq-Iran war Iraq used much of their resources and could not pay their debt to Kuwait. In a desperate move to resolve this problem, they requested for a reduction in oil prices (Fitzgerald 45).
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
Roggio, Bill. "US Drones Kill 2 AQAP Fighters in Eastern Yemen." The Long War Journal. The
target killing might be a necessary evil in order to maintain and protect the ideals of the American people. Sometimes it is necessary to act quickly, precisely, and secretly in order to neutralize a threat to prevent something greater from happening. Also, if the government were to alert the people of its actions, it would affect the outcome of the missions. Because of this there is a thin line between what should be accepted when pertaining to drone use and target killings.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the American citizens the due process of law, which guarantees the defendants the right to fundamental fairness and the expectation of fair trails, fair hearings, and similar procedural safeguards, and the Fourteenth Amendment affirms that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without the due process of law (Siegel 160). In the article, “Can the CIA Put a U.S. Born al Qaeda Figure on its Kill List?” the American Civil Liberties Union and Central Intelligence Agency debate whether the United States can target one of its citizens with armed drones without the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution. According to The Washington Times, President Barack Obama, put Anwar al- Awlaki on the kill list and approved his targeted killing in April 2010 because United States officials recognized that Anwar al-Awlaki was a danger to United States Homeland Security (Lucas 1). In addition to the President Barack Obama’s decision, the National Security Council approved Awlaki’s targeted killing as well (Shane 1). However, officials of the United States considered Anwar al-Awlaki a threat to United States Homeland Security because he was known as a suspected terrorist who had linked into many incidents such as the 9/11 attacks, the Fort Hood shooting, the potential bombing in Time Square, and the failed Underwear Bombing (Lucas1). Eventually, the Awlaki’s targeted killing is salient and significant because his targeted killing questions whether it is legal to kill a Unites States– born American citizen without the due process of law even though that citizen is a suspected terrorist. However, I believe that the decision to target Anwar al-Awlak...
In the movie, Eye in the Sky, a team is set out on a mission to apprehend Al-Shabaab militants in Kenya. We are shows some of the moral difficulties or debates that come with drones being used in warfare and more specifically in this case the war on terror. This movie illustrates a more up-close and personal viewing of what collateral damage is. It also gives us, the viewer, a stronger sense of how each different position involved throughout the movie/mission has its own degree of burdens. To fire or not to fire that is the question and there are strong arguments that validate both sides.
Should countries be allowed to use drones in modern countries? Since the installment of drones in warfare, the unmanned aerial combat vehicle has proven to be quite an effective tool. Nowadays, the efficiency of drones has overpowered the opposing arguments since it has more pros than cons. By defining the importance to keep military personnel safe, by providing coherent data on civilian lives, and by refuting the significance of drones to keep terrorism at bay, one will be enlightened to see that drones are the way of the future.