Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in response to receiving a letter from the U.S. attorney general that refused to rule out a CIA policy allowing drone strikes on U.S. soil in emergency situations, filibustered John Brennan’s nomination for CIA director for four hours. Backed by senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Paul made statements about the importance of trial by jury, claiming that this drone policy went against the Constitution.
Paul’s argument — that no citizen should be subject to a drone strike without first being accused of a crime and without a proper trial — is in response to the prospect of drone strikes on U.S. soil exclusively. Paul contended that drone strikes on American soil give the government undue power. This concern should allow apply to American drone strikes abroad.
Automated drones have changed the dynamic of the war on terror. With their small size and remote-controlled systems, drones can operate in nearly every corner of the world and without troop deployment. Though not all drones are equipped with weapons — many are used for surveillance and intelligence gathering — those that carry munitions have been used to target specific people overseas. These strikes are often justified because they have allowed the U.S. government to kill high-ranking persons in terrorist groups, notably Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Abu Yahya al-Libi.
What is troubling about drone attacks, however, is that they operate within the war on terror, which is fought on a global battlefield. The vagueness of the war’s parameters means that victims of these strikes are treated by the United States as war casualties and are therefore not subject to judicial action, no matter where the strikes happen. Drones used under this definition of war give the U.S. government a broad power to conduct violence across the globe without international legal consequences. Though deployed against people identified as combatants, drones give the government the troubling power to attack without a formal declaration of war against a particular country in which a strike is carried out. In fact, it is the CIA, not even the military, that conducts the majority of drone strikes. Although the war on terror is largely associated with the Bush administration, its influence on foreign policy persists. We must consider the ethical implications of rapidly developing drone technology if the war is to continue.
The breadth of the conflict in which drones are used is especially troubling when one considers collateral damage. Though drone strikes allow for a degree of specificity, the number of civilian casualties that accompanies strikes is shocking. Many drone strikes occur in remote areas. Coupled with the fact that strikes are often conducted without a personal U.S. presence, varying reports of casualties exist. Still, some sources, including the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, claim that up to 852 civilians were reported dead from drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, though exact numbers are uncertain.
The government’s staggering power to use drone strikes abroad has even been used against an American citizen, Anwar Al-Awlaki, killed by a drone strike in Yemen. Al-Awlaki was no friend to the United States. He incited many radicals to war against it, but he was, nonetheless, a legal American, and the Constitution does not play favorites. It is too late to give him a trial, but his fate serves as a reminder that drone strikes add a frightening precision to our government’s capability for violence: individual assassination.
Paul and the other senators were right to voice apprehensions about the relationship between drone strikes and constitutionality, but based on the widespread power weaponized drones give the U.S. government, politicians must consider the ethics of drone strikes against all people, American citizens or not. The use of drone strikes makes a mockery of national sovereignty, often kills innocents and gives the U.S. the right to assassinate outside conventional warfare. Political debate about drones must reflect this global viewpoint, in addition to a domestic one.
Walter Keady is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run Tuesdays.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 3 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
