I. INTRODUCTION
On a winter’s afternoon in February 2002, three men ascended a mountain near the Afghan city of Khost. Standing outside a series of caves, the men appeared to be talking. At 5’11”, Daraz Khan was the tallest of the three and may have been treated with a degree of deference by the other two. What the men talked about, or whether Khan was actually acting in some sort of leadership capacity, we will never know. As the men talked, a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) observed their activities from the skies. Believing that the tall Khan could be the 6’4” Osama bin Laden, the CIA operative controlling the UAV launched one of the Predator’s Hellfire missiles. The missile attack killed the three Afghani men.
The Pentagon originally claimed the men were al Qaeda members, but poor weather and the site’s geographic isolation thwarted the military’s initial efforts to verify this information. Reports soon emerged, however, that these three men were poor villagers unaffiliated with terrorists or Islamic militants. The men had gone up the mountain hoping to collect scrap metal. Four days after the attack, while admitting that the U.S. did not know the identities of the three men, a Pentagon spokeswoman still defended the attacks as legitimate.
Eight years later, armed UAVs are an integral weapon in the war on terror. The United States has used them in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Pakistan. The extent to which UAVs play a role in U.S. combat operations invites inquiry into the legality of the attacks themselves under international law. . Accordingly, this Comment will assess the international legality of current U.S. UAV operations by placing them in the context of already-existing scholarship on past attacks. I argue that the UAV attacks, while increasingly utilized to wage the war on terror, remain subject to rigorous legal review that properly balances promoting military interests and limiting civilian casualties. As a result, I conclude that most U.S. UAV attacks are legal as a matter of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
Part II.A introduces the reader to UAV attacks, providing a brief introduction to the modern use of UAVs as well as information on early UAV attacks in the war on terror. Part II.
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States was incredibly eager to strike back at the nations thought to be responsible for this horrific tragedy. These attacks were quickly attributed to the terrorist group al-Qa’ida, led by Osama bin Laden, and to the Taliban-run government of Afghanistan, which had provided sanctuary to al-Qa’ida. In response, Washington approved a covert plan led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to directly attack those responsible in their Middle East safe haven. Initiated on 26 September 2001 with the approval of the warlords of the Afghan Northern Alliance, with whom the CIA had formed an intelligence liaison relationship, Operation Jawbreaker resulted in the fall of the Taliban regime, the killing and capture of a significant amount of al-Qa’ida leadership, and elimination of a terrorist safe haven by early December 2001. Moreover, the Taliban’s collapse denied al-Qa’ida a pseudo-nation-state partner, serving to reduce the organization’s sanctuary to areas residing along the Pakistani border. Operation Jawbreaker, one of the first post-9/11 covert operations carried out by the United States in support of its national security interests, had proved successful. Word of the operation’s swift success astounded those back in Washington; dubbed the CIA’s “finest hour,” it signified the first of many victories by deposing the Taliban’s control of Northern Afghanistan.
September 11, 2001, Osama Bin Laden decided to “wake the sleeping giant.” The US immediately sent SOF units and CIA officers to recon the area and meet with the Northern Alliance. The primary battle leading up to this operation was Tora Bora, which was absent of conventional forces. Up until this point, the war on terror was predominantly a Special Operations fight along with Air Force for overhead support.3 SOF and the Northern Alliance had already displaced Taliban forces out of many towns and villages in northern Afghanistan to gain control of key terrain. Key towns in northern Afghanistan including Taloqan, Konduz, Herat, and Mazar-e Sharif took only three weeks to clear.4 The SOF units were making huge impacts across the country calling in air strikes. At the same time the SOF units were diligently...
Controversy has plagued America’s presence in the Middle East and America’s usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) contributes vastly to this controversy. Their usefulness and ability to keep allied troops out of harm’s reach is hardly disputed. However, their presence in countries that are not at war with America, such as Pakistan and Yemen, is something contested. People that see the implications of drone use are paying special attention to the civilian casualty count, world perspective, and the legality of drone operations in non-combative states. The use of drone technology in the countries of Yemen and Pakistan are having negative consequences. In a broad spectrum, unconsented drone strikes are illegal according to the laws of armed conflict, unethical, and are imposing a moral obligation upon those who use them. These issues are all of great importance and need to be addressed. Their legality is also something of great importance and begins with abiding to the Laws of Armed Conflict.
Osama bin Laden was an adversary of the West for years and it was known to the whole world. Unfortunately, he took it a little further by having two planes fly into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and another plane possibly for the White House. As we all know, this is the unforgettable day of September 11, 2001. Thousands of Americans were innocently murdered that day and in our own country by a terrorist organization. The United States of America would not stand for this and rapidly sought out Osama Bin Laden for what he had done to us. This is the day that caused the United States to accelerate the search and destruction efforts of bin Laden. Soon after September 11th, the United States was very involved in Afghanistan in trying to find him.
Ungerleider, Neal. "The Science Behind The Drone Terrorism Attack." Fastcompany.com. Fast Company. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. .
Group meeting with the kin of one Osama Bin Laden the morning of September 11,” which
From a little age, Osama was religiously committed, and whenever his father hosted hundreds of pilgrims during the Hajj, bin Laden had a great time getting to know the gatherers and making new contacts. (A Biography of Osama Bin Laden) Due to influences and strong conviction, this young boy, when reached adulthood, became a terrorist and high threat to many countries, especially America. Osama bin Laden, a fugitive terrorist, was finally caught and killed on May 2, 2011 with the cooperation of Obama and the Navy SEALs. This brings peace and closure to American citizens as well as political acknowledgement.
Technology in the light of military weaponry has been one of the growingly controversial issues that the world faces today. Among the top weapon types that have advanced greatly over the past recent years are nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. Though the United States government and military has been enthusiastically involved in the evolution of these weapons, their enthusiasm dwindles when responsibility must be taken for the consequences that result. Consequences that are left unresolved or postponed only bring about more doubts and questions that all branch off of one basic issue: Is it ethical to continue the advancement of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare when the results cannot be controlled?
Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have risen in both prevalence and apparent power. The presence of non-state entities has caused significant ethical and political problems with Western ideology. Coker discusses issues concerning non-state actors in “Ethics and War in the 21st Century” with special attention given to the conflicting cultural ideas regarding warfare concerning the USA. The ability to label a target as not only an enemy combatant, but a fundamentally opposed force that is willing to ignore common practices and ethics is one that Coker denounces and attempts to explain. The disparity of established ethics between the two groups is only complicated with emerging weapon technologies, most importantly non-lethal weapon systems. In recent decades, the concept of a diffused enemy has proven to be ethically more problematic regarding identification and actions against a combative force with considerations for emerging technologies.
One of the latest and most controversial topics that has risen over the past five to ten years is whether or not drones should be used as a means of war, surveillance, and delivery systems. Common misconceptions usually lead to people’s opposition to the use of drones; which is the reason it is important for people to know the facts about how and why they are used. Wartime capabilities will provide for less casualties and more effective strikes. New delivery and surveillance systems in Africa, the United Air Emirates and the United States will cut costs and increase efficiency across the board. Rules and regulations on drones may be difficult to enforce, but will not be impossible to achieve. The use of drones as weapons of war and delivery and surveillance systems should not be dismissed because many people do not realize the real capabilities of drones and how they can be used to better the world through efficient air strikes, faster delivery times, and useful surveillance.
	The pounding of shells, the mines, the death traps, the massive, blind destruction, the acrid stench of rotting flesh, the communal graves, the charred bodies, and the fear. These are the images of war. War has changed over the centuries from battles of legions of ironclad soldiers enveloped in glimmering armor fighting for what they believe to senseless acts of guerrilla warfare against those too coward to be draft-dodgers. Those who were there, who experienced the terror first hand were deeply effected and changed forever. In their retinas, images of blood and gore are burned for the rest of their life.
A lot of countries all over the world depend on technological advances to fight against their opponents. This reduced the risk of having a soldier wounded or dying in a war by making it easier with using these technologies when it comes to head to head combat. Even though using technologies are a great idea but many ethical issues arise from it. One of the main issue is the use of these Drones. This technology is developing more and more. In a recent study showed that there are over 700 active drone development all over the world and these programs are controlled under companies, research institutes, and the government. United States is mainly using these drones to fight against so called “terrorist” but some other countries use them as well. It is immoral and unethical to use these drones because it cause psychological disorders, violate privacy, cause deaths of innocent lives, and increase terrorism. (Reardon)
Tice, Brian P. (1991). Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – The Force Multiplier of the 1990s. Airpower Journal.
The U.S has sent these UAVs into Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, which is far away from where any American troop has been. engaged. The U.S has been using drones to diminish the al Qaeda forces. Despite the Obama administrations call for limits on drone strikes, Washington still uses them to kill off Al Qaeda leadership. “In Pakistan, the approximately 350 strikes since 2004 have cut the number of core al Qaeda members in the tribal areas by about 75 percent, to roughly 50-100.” (Kurth para. 2), which has resulted in a decrees of attacks in the area the drones hit. Al Qaeda proved remarkably adaptable to the drone attacks. In February a document was left behind by Islamist fighters fleeing Mali, the document detailed tips for avoiding drone attacks, twenty-two tips in total. Ranging from using trees as cover, to placing statues and dolls outside to mislead aerial intelligence, and covering vehicles with straw mats. The drone strikes have not hindered al Qaeda’s ability to replace dead leaders with new ones. The drone strikes have proven to be affective, but has made the organization angry in the process. Al Qaeda has been able to attract new recruits and resources by broadcasting footage of drone strikes, portraying them as acts of violence against Muslims. With the drone strikes that result in civilian deaths, al Qaeda uses them to frame Americans and show