The authorization of the use of drones in targeted attacks has seen debates erupt yet the attacks are against those suspected individuals. In May 2013, President Barack Obama was at the National Defense University where he described that the use of drone campaign in Yemen, Pakistan, and other parts as a ‘just war’. This means that it was waged proportionally and was their last resort to self-defense. He continued to assert that emphasis was being placed on the dilemmas associated with confronting modern terrorism threats. The use of drones was a superior alternative deemed morally right to using ground troops and other Special Forces in capturing terrorist suspects in places where America was not signed to engage in war practices (Boyle, 2015). Journalists, specialists, and other human rights groups have raised concerns over the rampant use of drones in killings. Law suits have also been filed against certain personnel, but there are reasons as to why the ex-President Barack Obama decided to authorize the use of drone. The discussion is laid on the ground of theories to look into the debate of drones and warfare. The theorists subject to discussion are Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham.
The possible use of drones against suspected enemy combatants on American soil is merely a show of how technology has advanced. Drone warfare on Kantian grounds asserts that the [p]ro-drone experts are fearful of the threat of ‘uncontrolled proliferation.’ According to him, the underlying assumption is correct on the grounds that aggression is unilateral. Take for example, if a Yemeni insurgent group decides to use drone strikes on American soils to assassinate a citizen who has been identified by certain behavioral patterns (Barack, 2013). The United Sates would react and Yemen would most likely be a subject to massive destruction. It is from this context that we establish that the drone warfare and its right towards technological aggression violate Kant’s universality principle. The logic that holds this premise is that since the United States cannot fathom other states employing advanced military technology on their soils, then, they should not use it to wage war. Worries arising about the proliferation of certain weapons show a good sign of one’s ethical boundaries. Kant employs the version of universal just war theory where it seeks and keeps perpetual peace, under a right civic administration that considers moral methods. This general principle can be applied to all conflicts and wars (Starke, 2016). The progressive moral built in this principle is that of ‘perpetual peace’ and ‘civil administration right.’ Lastly, it accepts corollaries meaning that it specifically considers means and utilizes ‘seek and keep’ phrases. This principle has been employed by Obama’s administration in considering drone strikes as it adheres to Kant’s moral and political views.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is from such broader perspectives that Kantian ethics application is questioned because it will mean that the U.S. will need to stop all the developments of such defensive technology because they do not want other rival states to develop the technology. It will also result to questioning whether the American military will have to park all the fighter jets because other states have fleets of weapons that possess inferior technology. The question that beckons is whether the American military should find ways of dismantling themselves as a superpower because they fear other states will achieve the same status.
When it comes to military matters, applying Kantian ethics becomes a problem because the imperative applies to a category of individuals having in mind their moral objectives. Therefore, they do not apply to acts by sovereign states. In such a case, Kant’s “categorical imperative” will need to be placed at the center of duty as a concept. Here, if a person feels that his or her actions are dictated by duty to either their country or citizens,, then their action becomes correct morally and ethically. Kant’s political writings have clearly shown that governments should unilaterally disarm or abandon their weapons yet it gives them an added advantage over their potential enemies. Kant also wrote that war should be viewed as an indispensable means to the human race that seeks to bring to a higher stage because it is expected to happen.
The new aspect of drone technology is clear, specific, and consistent in America’s international legal policies that involve targeted killings. President Obama’s senior officials in the administration described the drone strikes as being precise, closely supervised, effective, and indispensable. The aspect they emphasized most is that the drone strikes were authorized lawfully. This is associated to Kant’s approach of “categorical imperative” best suited for the military personnel. They are expected, at all time, to follow the orders of their superiors without question. For example, the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was because he was deemed as the most dangerous man in the world and referred to as the “Bin Laden of the internet.” President Obama said that the killing was a “tribute to American’s intelligence community” because he operated as the contact person for terrorists under their operations docket (Barack, 2013). His case was unique and extraordinary therefore, the case was dismissed on jurisdictional and procedural grounds
For many decades, the US government condemned targeted killings since they were characterized as assassinations or even extrajudicial executions. Nevertheless, they continued the drone campaign that clearly showed how they reconciled well with international human rights law. Here, invoking Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative is appropriate because of the maxim in place is viable and is seen as a universal law. Universality, in this case, is a worthwhile formula because it laid the groundwork for moral universalism philosophy where system of ethics or even a universal ethic, is applied universally. The policies defined under drone application serve to protect human and civilian rights. It also allows countries to use reasonable latitude in matters concerning transnational conflicts. International law is known to cover the use of lethal force and this is evident in the controversy that surrounds the legality of using drones. This especially applies when it targets those suspected individuals on American soil as it embraces the international humanitarian law called the law of armed conflict (LOAC). This body of law covers the Geneva Conventions, other treaties, and customary law applying to war conduct. Since the drone strikes are part of the armed conflict with Al Qaeda, meaning they are in compliance with the law of war during all armed conflicts. Therefore, the strikes are legal and the CIA also participates in the drone program because they are part of the armed conflict. The mission of CIA includes the violation of international law when the president authorizes them to meaning that they are neither trained nor steeped into LOAC doctrine and requirements (Martin, 2016).
The twentieth-century innovation has seen the United States use drone as a military necessity. It also emphasizes on the aspect of humanity and thus, unnecessary infliction of injury, suffering, or destruction is forbidden. Distinction is also a requirement because only lawful targets of enemy combatants are conducted intentionally to target them. Proportionality of the attack should not be excessive with regards to its anticipated collateral damage. This is because the target directly impacts those individuals participating in hostilities. In other times, there are instances where innocent civilian bystanders are killed, which are also applied by LOAC (Martin, 2016). The innocent civilians killed are a means to an end as they act as ‘collateral damage.’ They are inevitabilities, externalities that are necessary when it comes to pursuing the country’s noble objective. From this, Kant’s humanity principle is seen as a direct metaphysical condemnation of exploitation. Arguments raises are that drone strikes aim to kill particular enemy combatants and not have mass civilian casualties.
The other question is the possible use of drones by foreign states like United Kingdom and Pakistan against its own citizens. Russia is another country that was awakened to the strategic importance of having unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), drones. This was after a destructive five-day war with Georgia’s capital of Tbilisi. At the time of the attack, David Cameron was Britain’s Prime Minister who disclosed that his military used a drone in Syria to kills two British jihadists (Rayeed Khan and Ruhul Amin). The two had joined the Islamic State in Syria thus, were a direct threat to the country. Near the Afghan border, it is reported that Islamabad announced the killing of three militants who were high-profile terrorists by Pakistan (O’Grady, 2015).
Jeremy Bentham’s ethical theory of utilitarianism is associated to John Stuart Mill’s utility principle that advocates the use of drones. John Stuart Mill became Bentham’s greatest interpreter and he set out to humanize his pragmatic Utilitarianism through balancing reason and imagination (Bentham, 2012, p.13), individuality and social well-being. Bentham and Mill’s works have shown the importance of creating and developing ethical systems that influence moral philosophy and legislative policies. Bentham is the one who inspired Mill and he also came up with the unique prison idea, the ‘panopticon.’ According to Bentham, the prison was unique because the inmates were constantly monitored by prison officials who were never brought to the limelight. From this perspective, evidence of how utilitarianism was taken to the extreme is presented as they trample on the rights of minorities in society. According to Bentham’s theory, it is for the greatest good of the human race because it covers a great number of people. In other words, it gives emphasis to an ethical situations outcome over that of an individual’s ethics or actions. The Book Media Ethics: Issues & Cases has described how utilitarianism makes some people happy and others are miserable (Patterson & Wilkins, 2011).
Drones are the latest representations of technological advancement in warfare that continue to raise issues of morality and ethics in the American society. Since the face of conflict is ever-changing, conventional wars are waged using different means such as autonomous drones. Such changes are not a problem when it comes to the moral guidelines as they lead to a better future. Enemy combatants on American soils will continue to be attacked by military personnel using drones because they are safe and target suspected individuals. Innocent people may be caught in the fight, but this is minimal compared to nuclear weapons that look at mass destruction. Foreign states are also looking at using drones against its own citizens because it serves their greatest goal. It should not be mistaken to mean that they are targeting innocent people, but rather are eliminating those who are a threat to the peace of other citizens.
Using Kant’s dynamic approach to just war theory, it is combined with the proper use of judgment and reasoning. By so doing, hope is allowed as a guarantee of people’s perpetual peace. Kant’s universal just war theory has been recognized because it conforms to distinguishing characteristics of theories related to universal just war. The characteristics include: (1) its universal principle, (2) its progressive stance, and (3) its amenable to corollaries. Utilitarianism theory is the work of Jeremy Bentham that is seen to offer much information to the drone debate because it has an ultimate goal of ‘greatest good.’ This is because drone strikes allows war to go absolutely unilateral by radicalizing existing processes of any remote warfare and are extended to logical conclusion.
References
Barack, O. (2013, May 23). Obama’s speech on drone policy. New York Times . Retrieved from
www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-
policy.html?pagewanted=al
Bentham, J. (2012). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation . Mineola, New
York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Boyle, M. J. (2015). The legal and ethical implications of drone warfare. The International
Journal of Human Rights , 19(2), 105-126.
Martin, K. (2016, April 1). Are U.S. drone strikes legal? A guide to the relevant legal questions.
Center for American Progress . Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2016/04/01/134494/are-u-s-
drone-strikes-legal/
Patterson, P, & Wilkins, L. (2011). An introduction to ethical decision making. Media ethics
issues & cases . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
O’Grady, S. (2015, Sept 8). The U.S. and Israel aren’t the only countries killing people with
drone. Foreign Policy . Retrieved from
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/08/the-u-s-and-israel-arent-the-only-
countries-killing-people-with-drones/
Starke, S. C. (2016). Kant's Just War Theory.
