You've most likely heard of it by now, unless you get all your news from Dora the Explorer. I don't think she's been covering foreign policy much lately, unless you include
the immigration reform.
The US use of drones seems to be a strictly B-List political issue. It's not as prominent as gun control, but it's also not off to the wayside like education, for instance.
Drones are unmanned aircraft used by the Air Force. Surveillance drones are used for taking photos and videos and aiding in reconnaissance. Predator drones are the ones frequently shown in pictures, like the one above. They can see people from the sky while people can't see them. They are equipped with missiles to remotely take out targets.
The political issue of drones is about predator drones and specifically the use of drone against US citizens, and civilian deaths and the "double tap" policy.
It's likely that you remember the thirteen-hour filibuster by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Rand was trying to prevent the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director and, more importantly, call attention to the president's ability to use drone strikes against US citizens on US territory. After thirteen straight hours of talking by Rand, the administration gave its answer. While it is clearly against the Fifth Amendment for a president to just go out and declare the death penalty on someone, Eric Holder answered in typical lawyer fashion.
"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance I which it would be necessary and appropriate u der the constitution and applicable laws of the US for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the US." Holder said, though, that such a circumstance is unlikely.
All this use of the words "US territory" is an effect of one terrible incident that happened in 2011. Anwar al Awlaki was a radical Muslim Imam and clearly linked to Al Qaeda. His son, however, was not. Abdulrahman al Awlaki was a 16 year old US citizen. Without any charges or trial, or anything that would cause anyone to think he had done anything wrong, this 16 year old Boy from Denver was killed by a drone strike in Yemen. The circumstances around the death are unclear, but surely they were "unlikely".
Another thing talked about in the drone debate is civilian deaths. Under the Obama administration, 22 terrorists have been killed by drones. For that 22 terrorists, 800 civilians have been killed. What's worse is that sometimes, the children deaths aren't a mistake. Army Lt. Col. Marion Carrington, quoted in a Marine Times article, said that “It kind of opens our aperture” that children are being used in the conflict. “In addition to looking for military-age males, it’s looking for children with potential hostile intent."
On December 3rd, it was reported that three children were targeted for a drone strike for digging a hole in the ground. That is absolutely disgusting to anyone with the smallest sense of morality. A full list of children killed ideone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen can be found at http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-and-yemen
However, what may be even more disgusting is the "double tap" policy. In a double tap, a drone strike happens on a target, and then soon after, after first responders and other people have come to help, a second strike happens on the same target. Can you imagine if this happened in America? Can you imagine if an enemy bombed a target in the United States and ten bombed the same place soon afterward? We would be livid, and rightfully so.
Lastly, even if you don't have a heart or soul, you still must be against drone strikes. They are, in the end, counterproductive. Recent polls show that 74% of Pakistanis consider the United States an enemy. All that a lot of Pakistanis know about the United States is this: they are the country that sent a missile at the house next to mine to kill a terrorist, it he process they hit my house and killed my family. We wonder why they don't like us so much.
No comments:
Post a Comment