Unmanned Drones: Immoral?

Jordan Morris Dr. Flores Eng 103 February 27, 2013 unmanned Drones Immoral? I chose to research dickens clauses that take opposing sides on the employment of tactical unmanned aerial vehicle punchs that ar beingness use in battle over seas seeing as how there is so much controversy surrounding this topic in the intelligence activity nowadays. The unmanned aerial vehicle also known as UAV is an aircraft with no pilot on board. UAVs can be remote controlled or fly self-directedly based on pre-programmed flight plans (www. theuav. com). These unmanned drones are utilise in the military for a number of things including intelligence gathering and attacks terrorist groups.The archetypical article is the better of the two when it comes to convincing the reader. Although fighter planes have the return of and experienced pilot behind the wheel, unmanned drones are much than accurate, little valuable and safer than fighter planes. The point of the first article Five Myths a stir(predicate) Obamas Drone War (Washington Post) is to convince the reader that it is ok to use drones in combat. He talks abtaboo how during wartimes it is crucial for the weaponry to evolve, from slingshots to resign & arrows to guns to fighter planes to unmanned drones.He says, that from a moral and ethical standpoint drones are little to no different than rifles, bombers or tanks. (Washington Post) He also says that drones are some of the most precise weaponry used in combat theses day but doesnt really provide statistics. Drones should not make pass give us a false sense of security. The intelligence needed for targeting whitethorn require U. S. boots on the ground. (Washington Post) Drones are much less expensive than fighter aircrafts so it would make sense for a poorer country to robe in building drones instead of fighters. This presents a dilemma for the U. S. ecause we are more prone to attacks, as seen on September 11, 2001. In the first article Mark R. Jacobson l ists 5 myths that have been sparked ab bulge the use of these drones, and then explains his realize on each one. Jacobson addresss the domainment Drones are immoral, which is a great way to start the article seeing as how thats what most people perceive them to be. He says, Drones are neither autonomous killer robots nor sentient beings making life-or-death decisions. Yet, with the Terminator-like connotations of the term, it is easy to jam that these vehicles are flown via remote control by some 1,300 Air soak up pilots.Drones are an evolution in military technology, not a renewal in warfare. This bid is a prime example of Logos, the appeal to logic, because he takes a very straightforward approach to the topic at hand. He then goes on to use Ethos when addressing the statement, Drones allow us to fight wars without danger. Jacobson states that, Drones should not give a false sense of security. The intelligence required for targeting may require U. S. boot on the ground. T his characterizes the idea of a community politic being needed to gain information and do some sloughy work for there to even be the need for a drone strike.In the second article Drone Strikes Whats the Law? (LA Times) author Vicki Divoll discusses the effectuation of U. S. citizen Anwar Awlaki by our government activity in a drone attack. Her article deals with the fifth Amendments admonition No American citizen shall be deprived of life, autonomy or the property without due process of law. Her style of writing is more like the Tolmin Model of Argument. This article had much more emotion twisty which made the reader a lot more engaged in what the author was talking about.Instead of writing in a way that strength focus purely on the different types of appeals, the second article is pen in a way that focuses more on an initial contain that is backed by nurture certainty. In addition, the author mentions Awlakis score, which provides an turned on(p) involvement for the reader to remain engaged. The authors claim in the second article is that American citizens should be entitled to their constitutional rights. Her story about how Anwar Awlaki, an American citizen, was reportedly targeted and killed demonstrates the fact that not every citizen is being treated equally.She goes on to provide support for her claim by discussing, the sovereign Court case Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, a 2004 Bush-era Supreme Court decision, to justify that the government believes that there are no due process problems with the drone program. scarcely the memo writers make an inexcusable mi indorse They cherry-pick the decision, disregarding the heart of what the justices said. In the case she mentions, Yasir Hamdi, a U. S. citizen arrested on the battlefield in Afghanistan, set out to challenge his indefinite detention in an American military quickness as an enemy combatant.The administration at the time argued that, in wartime, the administrator director alone should determ ine who the enemy is and what measure can to be used against him. The courtyard disagreed and sent Hamdis case to a lower court for a check out of factual accuracy of his enemy combatant designation. This review never happened and Hamdi was deported. The Supreme Courts reasoning in Hamdi remains the most relevant legal example that applies to targeted killings. Divoll writes, Significantly, eight of the nine justices agreed that Hamdi was entitled to an naive review, outside the executive appendage, of the facts of the case.Only Justice Clarence Thomas bought the Bush administrations theory of executive power. Justice Sandra Day OConnor, writing the principal opinion, reminded us of the courts decades-long admonition A state of war is not a blank check for the professorship when it comes to the rights of the nations citizens. OConnor further explained how the due process clause operates in wartime when the executive branch is making a determination about the fate of an Ameri can citizen. Hamdis refer in liberty, she wrote, must be balanced against the needs of the executive in fighting a war.You dont need a law degree to accept that reasoning to targeted killings. If the executive cannot act alone when an Americans liberty is at stake in the post-9/11 War on Terrorism, the Supreme Court would be at least as concerned when an Americans life is on the line. The court has always ruled that the more crucial the individual interest at stake, the more process is due. All this is a great source of support for Divolls claim. The second article had much more factual evidence to back up the authors initial claim and until now still provided a sense of emotion to keep the reader interested.The two stories provided by Divoll were perfect examples in which the author could refer to and point out the flaws in our system. Although she doesnt come right out and blatantly state it, I believe that the author would agree in my previous statement that it is ok to use u nmanned tactical drones on American citizens exactly if they have refused to exercise their right to due process. Work Cited Page 1. http//www. theuav. com/ 2. http//articles. washingtonpost. com/2013-02-08/opinions/36988550_1_drone-strikes-drone-pilots-civilian-casualties (Washington Post) 3.