Issue of Our Time: Criticizing Drone Strikes and Transparency

Recent reports in the American media have been remiss with regard to a very important topic: the presence of drones on American soil. At stake are four key issues: how the media is failing the American people by presenting opaque emotional stories, whether drone strikes should be allowed to occur on American soil, the legal status of those targeted by drone strikes, and the actual sentencing procedure used to determine the guilt or innocence of those targeted. Unfortunetly, most media outlets obfuscate the truth, preferring to stage screaming matches between two pundits than present clear information. Instead of focusing on the massive breach of our Constitutional protection by the executive power, the intellectuals and pundits have failed to do their jobs. They have failed to deliver honest reporting that both elucidates and underscores the gravity of the situation at hand.

 

Proponents of drones usage have hurled comments such as “your opinion is feckless on account of your extremist ‘patriot’ leanings and undiagnosed paranoia” and antagonists have uttered emotional/rhetorical questions and accusations that appear nonconstructive such as “will I be struck down by a drone while drinking coffee?” or “what is to stop the administration from targeting me?” The debate has devolved into bloated and boring emotional appeals that have been met with two general responses: comfort and terror. Some have been comforted by the idea that machines will protect them against the malignant enemies of our country, others have been deeply terrified by the cold calculations the U.S. Government has made in ordering drone strikes.

 

Droneswatch.org has compiled a list of under-18 persons killed by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and the number is quite astounding. Other databases give more horrifying numbers. In an article for PolicyMic, Christian Rice claims that as many as 176 children have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan alone. Surely these children (some of them as young as 7 and 8 years old) were not guilty of terrorism as the courts that authorized these strikes purport? Which brings me to my first point.

 

It appears that in the U.S. Government’s process of authorizing drone strikes, the ends justify the means. The deaths of these children were the horrific means by which the U.S. Government sought to achieve their ends: the deaths of those who practice terrorism. U.S. Citizens have already been killed by U.S. Drone strikes. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki. Two weeks after his father was killed by a drone strike in Yemen, Abdulrahman was also killed (in Yemen) while eating dinner at a cafe. However, whereas it was clear in what ways Anwar may have been aiding terrorist organizations, proof of his 16-year-old son’s ties to the organization is lacking.   This is quite troubling, to say the least. The fact that a U.S. Citizen was killed via drone strike without even being the target shows how disposable the citizens of the United States are in the overall drone warfare strategy. It comes as little surprise that popular opinion has been degrading in support of unrestricted drone war.

 

This brings me to my second point: the issue of transparency. When Rand Paul delivered his now (in)famous filibuster against the Obama administration’s potential use of drones on American soil, I was ecstatic. Finally, this topic would be pushed to the forefront of American discourse and the ethical implications surrounding drone warfare would be brought to everyone’s ears. Yet the exact opposite occurred. In response to public outcry the Air Force has modified and erased information from its online drone strike list. Additionally, the Obama administration still has not clarified as to what exactly a “militant” in the “war on terror” is; in fact, the term has in fact been broadened to include all military-age males in a strike zone. If that is the case, and the administration has also cleared itself for drone strikes on American soil, then potentially any American can be killed via drone strike provided the government can identify at least one “militant” in the strike zone. Call me a vigilante  but given  1) the U.S. Government values the ends of drone warfare more than the lives of U.S. Citizens 2) The Obama administration has declared of itself to the U.S. people the right to use drones against “militants” on American soil and 3) the broadening of the term “militant” when discussing the consequences of drone

strikes, I am very wary as to the use of drones at all in its current form. The behavior of the U.S. Government has been irresponsible and disgraceful. Their policies have dangerous implications for the freedoms of every man, woman, and child as espoused in the Constitution and our government has been declared international criminals against humanity as a result. The only way for the practice of drone strikes to be revised appropriately is to have a transparent administration, which unfortunately eludes us at the moment.