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

The Ethical Implications of the Current Government Drone Strike Polices Essay Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) first made their appearance in 1919 when Elmer Sperry, who also invented the gyroscope and autopilot, attacked a captured German ship with the first UAV loaded down to with explosives((U. s. army unmanned, 2010). At the time this was a revolutionary weapon, but if we fast forward 80 years from the time of that experiment, UAVs became a common and prolific part of the modern battlefield. Although there is little debate as to the legality of their use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, in recent years there are been much debate as to the role they should play in the larger American declared Global War on Terror or GWOT. While the government believes that it is acting in the best interest of the American people, more and more scholars and foreign governments are questioning the legality and ethical implications of the current UAV polices governing strikes outside 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 approximately 115 targets. This took place just shortly after Hellfire air-to-surface missiles were test fired and approved for use on Predator UAVs. When the war began in Iraq in 2003 UAVs were there helping to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s government and destroy military targets. Drones were utilized in either a direct support role of ground troops in an overwatch capacity with the ability to assist in command and control and the second in a hunter-killer 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 the battlefield. The program and its policies drew criticism and questions related to international law. 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 (O’Connell, 2010). The difference between theses strikes and the ones conducted by the military lies in the fact that the military was striking targets in a recognized warzone while the CIA was operating over the sovereign territory of another nation. The UN Commission on Human Rights noted that this was done with the consent of Yemen and they had the, â€Å"responsibility to protect their citizens against the excesses of non-Sate actors†¦ actions must be taken in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law. Further, in the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, â€Å"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 group 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 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 process between 207 and 321 other people were killed (Callam, 2010). The large difference in the number of people reportedly killed is due in large part to the methodology used in determining how many people were killed (Beswick, 2010). Currently it is known 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 exponentially 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 private entities are developing new manned aircraft (Deri,2012). While there is no question the use of these weapon systems is legal in countries where there is combat that meets the definition of armed conflict under international law such as Afghanistan, but their use in countries like Pakistan depends on how terrorism is classified. Previously, the government 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 defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (Maggs, 2005). After the government began the drone attacks over countries they were not in direct conflict with, the UN Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council with concerns over, â€Å"the lack of transparency regarding the legal framework and targeting choices. † He requested information from the government and they declined to provide any official response to the UN, but cited a statement made by a government legal adviser named Harold Hongju Koh. Mr. Hongju Koh stated in a speech to the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in 2010 that there are a number of legal bases to justify the use of targeted killing. He stated that, â€Å"As a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, 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 lawâ€Å" 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 al-Qaeda 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, â€Å"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 legitimacy† (O’Connell, 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, â€Å"deprived of life, 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 government’s 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 before 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 â€Å"essential minimum criteria†¦ the existence of organized armed groups† and those groups must be, â€Å"engaged in fighting of some intensity†(Gardam, 2010). Al-Qaeda has a weak command and control structure and its organization has been described as nothing more than a â€Å"diffuse network of affiliated groups†, ruled 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 conclusion that al-Qaeda is in fact not an â€Å"organized armed group† and the War on Terror is not so must a war against a organization, but a â€Å"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 O’Connell a leading international law researcher pointed out in her paper titled â€Å"Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones†, that The International Court of Justice ruled that the right to self-defense must only result from, â€Å" an attack that involves a significant amount of force† (O’Connell, 2010). Also, when acting in self defense, the level of force used must take into account such things as collateral 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 â€Å"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 UN’s 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 the 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.