The use of lethal force in other jurisdiction can only be acceptable where the foreign government is actively supporting the militants. Where there are a high number of suspects in a foreign jurisdiction, the United States has to come up with a mechanism of respecting sovereignty while upholding its interests. Also, the use of lethal force has to be restricted to persons indicted by a court of law. The federal government may be forced to seek a warrant from a judge after indicting the individual. Such a measure would help to ensure that there was an oversight on the process of determining threats to national security.
/>
While the need to protect citizens from terrorist attacks is a key concern for the government, it has to be balanced with the right to privacy. While government surveillance by itself is key to combating terrorism, if left unchecked it may be more damaging than the terrorist attacks. One viable limitation is to restrict government surveillance to specific known threats. State agencies should only collect data involving individuals with questionable links. Such measures ensure that the majority’s privacy remains while security is guaranteed. Also, with reduced volume of data more in-depth analysis of the data is possible for greater efficiency.
Government surveillance may also be restricted on the nature of data that the state collects from internet companies. While browsing history may give a clear indication of suspect’s behaviour and conduct, some details by themselves are unnecessary. The refusal of government request on the production of sensitive information like credit card information and passwords as such is necessary. Too much limitation may turn to be counterproductive while too little may be harmful. It requires the setting up of a legal mechanism that regulates and legitimizes government surveillance.
Works Cited
Masters , Jonathan. Targeted Killings: The Council on Foreign Relations. 23 May 2013. Article. 8 October 2014. <http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627>.
