INTERNATIONAL LAW
In an article titled, ‘The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,’ Henry L. Stimson, tries to justify why he and his team of scientists felt the need to drop the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Stimson, the then Secretary of War, in a race to beat Germany, used the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From Stimson’s view, while the use of the bomb was effective in bringing an end to the war, and also justified the huge sum of money and time spent on the ‘Manhattan’ project, it just couldn’t justify using it over civilian habitats. There was an Interim Committee formed to advice the president on the atomic bomb, and the committee should have briefed the president about its lethal consequences. Since Stimson and his selective list of scientists were aware of the consequences of the atomic bomb, they can’t escape the blame for developing and using the bomb, saying they didn’t have the competence to solve political, social, and military problems. There is no justification on recommending the use of the bomb against Japan to save American and Japanese lives. Thousands of innocent Japanese lives were lost, and the ineffectiveness of the proposed U.S policy to land and occupy Japan could not justify the use of the bomb. Without allies to support her, and her navy nearly wiped out, she couldn’t sustain on her own, and this could have abruptly ended the war. Also, she had to fight the threats from China and Russia, which made Japan vulnerable. Using the morality of being a victim of her first sneak attack, does not amend the crime of using the atomic bomb on unsuspecting civilians.
President Obama, speaking on the U.S Drone Policy said that while any U.S military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, or has impacted foreign policies overseas; the laws of the land constrained him from using his powers even during war times. The use of drones, he said, was to shield the government from public scrutiny that a troop deployment invited, and the retaliation of the number of outlandish claims that were made against him and his government for attacks accruing out of drones. Supporting his use of drones, Obama said that all drone attacks were carefully examined and underwent due process before they were authorized. Claiming the drone attacks were not politically motivated, Obama said that drone attacks were carefully planned and not done in secrecy, and that Congress was always consulted, informed, and authorized such attacks, including the one against Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen. Justifying the attack on Anwar al-Awlaki, President Obama said that no person, American included, who acted against the nation’s security, could be allowed to walk away because of his or her citizenship. There were challenges and opposition to the use of drones, but because of their success in eliminating terrorists without causing serious loss to others, he was willing to continue using drones in hostile terrains to weed out terrorist groups. Despite opposition from countries such as Pakistan, Obama said that he will continue to use drones in enemy territory till terrorism ends. Ordering such attacks was among the hardest decisions he has to make as a President, but he pledged that he couldn’t watch innocent people being slaughtered by terrorists, and will continue to order drone attacks. One advantage of using drones is that they are unmanned and so, lives are protected in the event of an attack on it.
In Drones Evolve into Weapon in Age of Terror, the 9/11 attacks revolutionized American weaponry delivery systems with the introduction of long-distant pilotless spy craft drones using remote controls. The U.S has been successful in using drones to target terrorists hiding in undetected, hostile terrains. The success of its strike attacks must have pleased Congress to authorize further attacks on terrorists in Yemen and Somalia. While policy makers seek to increase its use, there are many intelligence veterans who have questioned whether the remote-control killings have violated ethical boundaries. The powerful drone attacks made a former U.S official say, “the government shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner. It is an important program, but there are checks and balances.” Another former U.S official called drones as an ‘assassination tool.’ While operational difficulties and disagreements over who should pay for its operations continue, after Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush authorized covert actions of drones. In 2002, as the U.S. relationship with Pakistan became difficult, and the Pakistanis became slow to respond to drone-hit requests, the U.S authorized drone attacks against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The drone attacks were successful, as the CIA was able to kill two top Al Qaeda planners and a Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud. So successful were the drones, that President Obama approved the doubling of the CIA’s predator fleet from seven to 14 drone orbits. Drones can be operated in foreign countries without pilots. They are effective and can save many innocent lives from the guns of terrorists.
