Jessica Sensi
Blog Post 2
I do not agree with the use of
remote warfare and targeted killing as it can result in innocent, civilian
killings and it can lead to people acting without considering the consequences
of their actions. The article by Sharkey outlines many reasons as to why the
use of drones is not humanitarian and can be seen as an ineffective use of
warfare.
I completely agree that targeted
killing through the use of drones is not humane because you risk killing
innocent people who happen to be in the area. We see this at the end of Ender’s
game when Ender has to go to battle against the Formics. He must kill the
entire species in order to take out the “queen”. Also, in the article by Becker
and Shane, they speak of someone who was to be killed under Obama’s orders but
they knew that he was also with his in-laws and wife at his home at the time.
If they were to go along with the killing, they risked killing these other
people who weren’t necessarily guilty of terrorist activities. After thinking
about this myself, I figured it would be deemed okay to kill these people as
well because they know their family member is committing these actions, and you
can assume that they are up to no good themselves. However, after thinking it
through, I realized that on a much less drastic scale, this doesn’t usually
apply. In other words, if my husband were to commit murder, the authorities
would come to our house in order to arrest him, not me. They wouldn’t just
assume I had something to do with it as well. Upon killing a suspected
terrorist, the government runs the risk of killing innocent people who do not
deserve to die. The principles of distinction and proportionality work here to
protect innocent civilians, but a machine (or robot) is not able to distinguish
between a combatant and civilian, especially if politicians constantly change
the criteria for deciding who is a combatant and who isn’t.
Also, the use of targeted killing
and remote warfare can lead to a person becoming desensitized to killing.
Sharkey explains that it is much easier for someone to make the decision to
kill someone when they don’t have to be right there doing it. They also
wouldn’t feel as much guilt for killing innocent civilians in the area either.
I feel this is true because the fear of killing is no longer relevant and there
is a lack of PTSD, as the “killer” doesn’t have to experience the products of
his actions. Barack Obama has spent his presidency increasing the use of drones
but his actions don’t particularly make sense to me. He fought to close the
prison at Guantanamo because of its inhumane characteristics and the desire to
investigate suspected peoples, but is actively using targeting killing and
remote warfare. He is killing these people instead of capturing and
investigating them.
The article regarding myths about
drones by Carpenter and Shaikhouni all address things almost as a correction of
all the common misconceptions of drones and what their effects are. While I
agree with most of their points, especially that drones are “killer robots”,
upon reading the article I found that most of the writing was refuting points
that people make for not using drones at all. In other words, instead of it
being an article that about misconceptions about drones in general, it felt as
though it was written to help persuade the reader to change their opinion to be
in support of drone use.
In your second paragraph you made the comparision to your husband commiting murder. If your husband came home and told you about the murder and you knew about it, then your are an accesory to murder in which the policy have every right in the world to arrest you and prosectute you. If he came home and didnt tell you about murder you still would probably be questioned but realease Frankly, i do not think there is a single woman in the middle east who's husband is in the taliban and doesnt know about. This technically makes them an accesory to terrorism and murder if we were to use your arguement. Thus technically we do have the right to attack them with drones. As I mentioned in my blog post a simple ultimatum. Basically there is a man who is a terrorist leader who we have one opportunity to drone strike his heavily armed compound in the mountains that would obliterate any troop force that tried to penetrate it. We also know from intel, obtained by drone spying, that he is planning an attack against the United States. What we don't know is who is in there with him. Do we take the shot? If there is his family in there do we still take it? At what point dont we take the shot?
ReplyDeleteYou're right in saying that if I were to know about the murder that I would be an accessory (I was assuming I did not know).And if these women are aware of their husband's involvement, then I also believe they should be killed. I think we should take the shot if we know theres involvement of the people present. However, if were in a public place, I don't believe the shot should be taken. Innocent civilians shouldn't be held accountable just because the person we are trying to kill happens to be somewhere public at the time.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think being aware of a family member's involvement in terrorist activity does in no way mean you are deserving of the same actions as would be directed at a terrorist. If you are the wife of a Taliban member, you could be executed for any number of things Americans would consider trivial. To say they are just as bad simply does not take into account the reality of the world those people live in.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the collateral damage aspect. Civilian death is a part of war, it is inevitable. To use the example being discussed, one option the Obama administration had was to use a missile to take out Osama bin Laden in Abottabad. Most if not everyone in his compound would have died, some of them innocent people. If the only option to get a high value target involves a small amount of collateral damage, and there is a small window of opportunity, commanders are going to take that risk. It has happened time and time again with drone and airstrikes. War is messy and innocent people die. That is the reality, and something the American public needs to understand before it gets all excited and patriotic sending its military, less than 1% of the country, to fight on its behalf. Military force should be a last resort, because lives on all sides will be lost.