The next topic I think that needs to be addressed is the PTSD. I think that more govermental programs and protocols need to be enacted for helping the drone command pilots. More regulation of drone pilots should be implemented. For example, the maximum number of hours flown in a row or the amount of strikes a pilot can execute in a certain time frame. I think the impact of war is severly overlooked when referring to drone strikes. I too, fall under the blanket of this problem. Although we don't have men on the ground killing people, they still are killing people. I recently, read a long article on PTSD and its effects it can have on ones self, family and friends. We far too overlook the drastic effects of drone pilots and i believe because it is become more common we must act swiftly.
Drones, Data, and National Security in the 21st Century
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Blog 3
This topics blog post i a very interesting issue. It seems that there many people in this world such as Singer feel that Obama is overtly scheming his way around congress related to war. One point that is talked about is that it is necessary for congress to declare war and that the use of drone strikes is circumventing war. Congress already declared a war on terror. The increased use of drone strikes with out the permission of congress is not circumventing the moral or common law. I believe that Obama should tedious address congress 48 hours before the deployment of troops. These are American, human lives that are being at stake. The use of drone strikes however, is an entirely different ball game. As we have read in other articles (which i will cover later) drones are using long tedious 24/7 surveillance over enemy targets and houses. There comes a moment in these surveillance missions where we have the opportunity to strike. I don't really think Obama has the time to go and consult congress before taking the oppportunity to take out a terrorist leader. If the situation required Obama to get a congress vote the opportunity window could disappear. Additionally, I believe the is no change to this rule simply because of the reason i just said as well as many reasons that the "democracy" of the United States doesn't understand. However, I do think there is a solution to this problem that could help the Congressman feel like the President isn't underming their control or power. Establishing a comittee of officials from each branch of the military as well as an elected group of congressman to form some sort of military quick action voting comite for strikes like this could be helpful. In this situation we could have each branch have a representative as well as members of congress that were voted by the democracy to represent the people. This comitte would be on call 24/7. It benefits both parties in that Obama could make swift action decisions and the democracy would have a representation by their elected officials.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Alexei,
ReplyDeleteSinger asserts that drones have changed our democratic processes and have given more power to the President and to the CIA. I don't think that Singer thinks that Obama is necessarily "scheming", in that I don't think that it is Singer's opinion that Obama is the sole responsible party for these developments.
I tend to agree that if the President were to seek approval of every single drone strike the window of opportunity, as you say, would most likely disappear (especially considering how hostile the Republican Congress is toward Obama in general). However I'm not really certain how this is different from your proposal of establishing a committee of officials. I don't think it would be feasible for them to be on call 24/7 as these are also real human beings with families and other responsibilities.
Well, those that sign up for this committee which max should be 11 people (5 congressman, Navy, Army, Marine, Airforce, CIA, FBI) have to be accessible and have to know their responsibilities before running to be on this committee.
DeleteAlexei,
DeleteHow much power would be delegated to this committee? Would the president be invited to these meetings? Would he have veto power?
In other words, it seems that there is no real change in decision-making time from the President asking Congress or the President meeting with a committee.
I mean there are 535 people in the United States Congress, you don't think 11 people can make a decision quicker and more efficient then 535 people. Also, the president should be allowed at the meetings to make his case to the comittee if he feels he needs to plead his case. Im regards to the veto power, just like he can veto congress he should be able to veto the committee, at least the people are getting some sort of say in the subject matter.
DeleteAlexei,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alisa that this committee probably wouldn't be too efficient. Even though these people would be available, how long would it take them to make a decision regarding the shot?
I also agree that PTSD is often overlooked when discussing drones because these people aren't physically fighting the fight and there is an amount of distance between them. I think this distance is what makes it so easy for you and I to over look the PTSD. It's so far away and while we know its not just a video game, it almost seems like one because they're staring at surveillance and just have to press a button. Should the government actively make efforts to alleviate PTSD? Should they pay for therapy and treatments?
I think it should be the goverment's duty 100% to make sure PTSD is taken care of. They should pay for therapy and treatments as well as other benefits that affect the patients of ptsd such as subsidising an income for these people that can't work because of their mental illness.
ReplyDeleteAlexei,
DeleteIn regards to PTSD, I think that those individuals interested in the work of a drone operator should be made aware of the risks that may happen as a result of the job. I agree with you that the government should provide them with the necessary health services if its found that they are needed.
I think although the idea of a committee is an interesting one, and surely gives more democratic control over these strikes, I think the main argument of Singer and those like him is being a bit confused here. I think what Singer is referring to specifically is the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act in part says that the US armed forces cannot be engaged in combat for longer than 60 days without Congressional approval. What Singer is arguing (if I'm wrong here someone please correct me), is that the continued use of drone strikes counts as having US armed forces engaged and the strikes have been in use for more than 60 days. Therefore, the President needs Congressional approval to continue having US armed forces engaged in combat. Now that leads to another laundry list of questions: should drone strikes fall under the oversight of the War Powers Act? What of those strikes conducted by the CIA? Does "armed forces" mean troops on the ground?
ReplyDelete