The U.S. Use of Drones
Introduction
Over the past 10 years, the use of drones (or unmanned aerial systems) by the U.S. Government has undergone expansion in location, frequency and scope. From the year 2001 to the year 2012, the United States military has enhanced its drone inventory from 50 to about 750 drones. An estimated 5% of these can be armed. As such, drones are fast becoming a primary weapon for the U.S. They are critical tool in war against militant and terrorist organizations all over the world. Drones have huge capabilities and advantages over other intelligence and weapon systems. They are capable of silently observing a person, a location or a group for hours on end, but take immediate action when an opportunity to strike becomes available.
With this combination of unique capabilities, the U.S. government has been able to use drones to decimate Al-Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and disrupt activities of several other militant groups. Therefore, focus on drones has largely centered on their use in other countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, in targeting terrorists. However, both the domestic and international use of drones in the United States has raised some legal and ethical concerns. This paper examines the legal and ethical concerns that result from the use of drones both inside and outside the United States.
Drones, also referred to as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are aerial systems that have the capability of being remotely controlled for long and short range civilian and military purposes (Zenko 4). Usually, UAVs are equipped with a camera, and some have the capability of being armed with missiles. This means that drones do not carry a human operator on board, but are capable of flying under autonomous programming or remote control. The size of drones varies, with some being as small as the size of an insect, while others are the size of a traditional jet. Drones came into sharp focus following the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden by the U.S. NAVY S.E.A.L.s in 2011. According to the Telegraph’s Crilly (1), the US used a new type of stealth drone to gather intelligence on Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden before the raid to kill him. The UAVs used are described as Reaper and Predator drones. Therefore, the use of drones by the U.S. in fighting terrorist and militant groups has seen a transformation of modern warfare’s nature.
There are 2 unique advantages of the use of drones over manned aircraft, special operations raids and distant missile strikes when it comes to the destruction of targets. One advantage is that UAVs allow for sustained persistence over likely targets. For example, the Reaper and the Predator are capable or remaining aloft for over 14 hours while fully loaded with munitions (Zenko 6). The A-10 ground attack aircraft and F-16 fighter jets can only do 4 hours or less. Unlike raids or manned aircrafts, UAVs are capable of flying in inhospitable environments for extended durations, without putting ground troops or pilots at risk of capture, injury or death. The second advantage is that drones offer a near-instantaneous responsiveness that the other mentioned platforms lack. These advantages mean that there is less collateral damage from the use of drones as compared to the use of special operations raids and other weapons platforms. But how many drone strikes have been conducted by the United States, and who has been killed by drone strikes?
Estimates from the New America Foundation indicate that the government of the United States has conducted 61 CIA drone strikes in Yemen and 349 in Pakistan (Levs 1). However, the government does not give out figures that indicate the number of strikes that have been carried out. Estimates by the same organization indicate that about 3279 persons have been killed by drones in Pakistan since the year 2004. The same report indicates that about 18 to 23 percent of these people were not militants. In Yemen, this figure is put at around 928, with about 860 of those killed being militants (Levs 1). Indeed drones find many other applications outside military use. Law enforcement agencies use them for surveillance; they find use in the study of ecosystems and weather systems, and numerous other applications. An example is given of the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya which has plans of using drones to deter poachers and monitor wildlife. However, it is the prospect of domestic drone strikes that has raised numerous concerns. Therefore, what are the legal and ethical considerations in the use of drones by the U.S. government, both domestically and internationally?
Ethical and Legal Concerns of the Use of Drones
According to Edwards-Levy (1), majority of U.S. citizens are in support of drone attacks on suspected terrorists in other countries, but they do not approve their use in other situations. Citing the Gallup Poll released on March 2013, 65 percent of the people polled observed that the government can launch strikes in other countries where there are suspected militants or terrorists. More than 50% of the respondents however felt that such strikes should not be used if the suspected terrorists happen to be American citizens. According to the same poll, there was string opinion against the utilization of drone strikes inside the United States. About two thirds of those polled were in opposition of domestic drone strikes against terrorists, with 79 percent being against the use of drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens (Edwards-Levy 1). The legal and ethical concerns of the use of drones stem from issues of infringement on privacy of citizens, as well as reports of civilian casualties resulting from these strikes.
Steven Groves addresses the issue of drones and international law:
Targeted drone strikes by the U.S. against terrorists are in compliance with the international law of war, since the U.S. and Al-Qaeda are engaged in an armed conflict because the U.S. possesses an innate right of self-defense. Particularly, armed drones are well suited in targeting enemy belligerents while at the same time ensuring that there is minimal harm of civilian populations, as the law of war requires. The U.S. has the right to deploy all the tools in its possession, even armed drones, to make sure that terrorist organizations do not succeed in attacking the U.S. homeland (Groves 1)
The argument is that using drones to target suspected terrorists or militants internationally is legalized by the United Nations Charter’s Article 51. Article 51 is applicable if “either the state that is targeted agrees to the application of force in its boundaries by another nation, or the group or the state targeted that operates within its boundaries, was accountable for an aggression act against the targeting state (O’Connell 3). As such, Steven Groves poses that:
The U.S. can lawfully target Al-Qaeda in different countries using lethal force under two interrelated, but autonomous justifications: first, the U.S. and Al-Qaeda are 2 belligerents locked in an armed conflict and; even without the presence of an armed conflict; the United States has an innate right to self-defense against threats posed by Al-Qaeda (Groves 2).
However, according to the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (5), while the U.S. should be able to protect its people and boundaries from threats by terrorists, there is substantial evidence of harmful impacts of drone strikes to Pakistani civilians. While the United States government rarely acknowledges civilian casualties, evidence suggests that strikes carried by US drones have killed or injured civilians. Data by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism indicates that between June 2004 and September 2012, drone strikes killed between 2562 and 3325 people in Pakistan. Of these people, about 471 to 881 were civilians, and 176 of them were children (IHRCRC 6). The same figures also indicate that about 1228 to 1362 people have been injured by these drone strikes. In addition to the issue of civilian casualties, there is the aspect of signature strikes. In 2008, the then President George W. Bush authorized signature drone strikes against suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Signature strikes are used to target anonymous suspected terrorists and militants. The current President, President Barack Obama, expanded and extended this practice into Yemen. The practice in effect considers all military-age males who are in a strike zone as combatants, unless sufficient intelligence posthumously proves them innocent. This has led to the killing and injuring of children, people attempting to rescue drone strike victims, and the funeral processions of deceased militants.
However, it is the prospect of the use of drones within the United States that raises various legal and ethical concerns. According to Thompson (3), the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 gave the Federal Aviation Administration the mandate to establish a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil UAV systems in the country’s airspace system by the year 2015. Projections by the FAA indicate that about 30000 drones will be flying in U.S. skies in less than twenty years. Drone use is not a new thing in the United States. Thompson (4) observes that they have been used domestically by local, state and federal governments in a range of situations. For example, the Department of Homeland Security utilizes them in policing the country’s borders to deter illegal border crossings by unauthorized criminals, terrorists and aliens, and to detect and interdict the smuggling of drugs, weapons and other contraband products into the nation. Despite their great significance to the security of the nation, some feel that drone use could jeopardize the Fourth Amendment. The core values of the Fourth Amendment are privacy and protection from arbitrary and excessive government intrusion.
The ACLU identifies several ways in which UAVs infringe on the privacy of citizens. While acknowledging that UAVs or drones are helpful in search and rescue missions and fighting wildfires, Stanley and Crump (11) observe that their potential use by law enforcement agencies is a threat to the privacy of Americans. This is because their capabilities enable for pervasive video surveillance. With the law enforcement agencies in the United States expanding their deployment of drones for surveillance, this routine aerial surveillance is likely to have a profound impact on American public life. There are also concerns that drones could be armed with weapons that are nonlethal, such as Tasers, tear gas and rubber bullets. A number of states are taking into consideration legislations that seek to regulate drone use. In fact, Zuckerman (1) observes that the Republican Governor of Idaho signed a law restricting the use of drones by police agencies and other public agencies citing the protection of privacy rights as the reason. Therefore, based on these concerns, clear guidelines that regulate the use of drones need to be put in place to make sure that drone use inside and outside the United States does not have negative consequences.
Conclusion
The use of drones is no doubt a major milestone in the efforts by the United States to fight terrorist and militant groups. Drones have made it possible for the gathering of intelligence and the execution of strikes on targets that could not be easily accessed. However, despite their great advantages in the military field, there have been legal and ethical concerns, mostly from human rights groups about their use. These concerns revolve around the sovereignty of nations where these attacks are conducted, signature attacks, civilian casualties and the privacy of American citizens. With the prospect of drones being deployed within the United States, there have been concerns that armed drone can be used to strike an American citizen on U.S. soil. This, coupled with the fears that the use of drone is a threat to privacy and the Fourth Amendment, creates the need for the reforming of the U.S, drone strike policies.
Works Cited
Crilly, Rob. Osama Bin Laden Dead: U.S. Used New Reaper and Predator Drones to Track Al- Qaeda Leader. The Telegraph, 18 May 2011. Web. 08 May 2013.
Edwards-Levy, Ariel. Poll: Americans Support Drone Strikes Abroad, Not on U.S. Soil. The Huffington Post, 25 March 2013. Web. 08 May 2013.
Groves, Steven. Drone Strikes: The Legality of U.S. Targeting Terrorists Abroad. The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder, April 2013, No. 2788, pp. 1-15.
International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic. Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians from U.S. Drone Practices in Pakistan. Global Justice Clinic, Stanford Law School, September 2012, pp. 1-182.
Levs, Josh. CNN Explains: U.S. Drones. CNN, 08 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 May 2013.
O’Connell, Mary Ellen. The International Law of Drones. American Society of International Law Insight, 2010; 14(37): 1-6.
Stanley, Jay, and Crump, Catherine. Protecting Privacy from Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft. American Civil Liberties Union, December 2011, pp. 1-22.
Thompson, Richard M. Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses. CRS Report for Congress, April 2013, 7-5700, pp. 1-24.
Zenko, Micah. Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies. Council on Foreign Relations Special Report, January 2013, No. 65, pp. 1-53.
Zuckerman, Laura. Idaho Restricts Drone Use by Police Agencies Amid Privacy Concerns. Reuters, 11 April 2013. Web. 08 May 2013.
