#1 The Killing Machines

Drone killing is a new type of warfare in

which technological superiority is so great
that the attacking soldier suffers no
physical discomfort or danger whatsoever
during a fight with an enemy. However,
some pilots say that there really is no
difference. After all, is it so much more
unfair to kill a man armed with not much
more than a rifle, with a stealth jet, or a
remote control? Either way, the
technological advance makes it extremely
advantageous for the U.S. soldier. 6
Drones have evolved to become highly
sophisticated and automated even.
Drone attacks, instead of quelling terrorist
attacks, have actually sowed seeds of
anger that cause future terrorist attacks.
The anger at the unfairness of having
family members killed from afar by a drone
fuels new terrorist forces. The text claims
that is it one of the sources of power the
terrorist forces actually feed on. By killing
people with drones, the U.S. military may
only be strengthening the will of the
enemy. 3

#2. Death By Drone, And The

Sliding Scale Of Presidential
Power

Presidents have always surpassed their

allotted executive power, and used
unconstitutional force in times of crisis.
However, past uses of excessive power
have more or less been justified, and have
also only led to the suppression or arrest of
U.S. citizens. James argues that Obamas
use of drones to kill Americans is taking
unconstitutional wielding of executive
power to a whole new level. 2, 7.
In the constitution, it is clearly stated that

Americans have a right to life, as well as

proper trial. It is, therefore, highly illegal
and against American ideals to take a
American citizens life as were the
examples listed by Frank. 7
Supposedly, the government is only
supposed to kill the high ranking terrorist
officers, but drone strikes have killed many
younger and seemingly harmless people,
including U.S. citizens. This is not only
unethical, but shows how ineffective or
inefficient drone strikes are against
terrorists. 3
The president does not hold constitutional
power to deploy drones against perceived
threats, but neither Congress nor the
judicial courts have stopped him. It is the
lack of resistance, therefore, that the
president can use his power
unconstitutionally with impunity. 2

#3 Constitution Check: Could the

president legally order a drone
strike inside the U.S.?

The power to respond speedily to a

emergency foreign threat is implied
through the constitution. Theoretically, the
president does have the executive power
to use lethal force to defend against a
terrorist attack. However, the question now
discussed is whether or not the president
has the power to kill passive Americans
suspected of terrorism, in the U.S., with
drones. 9. The war has shifted, for almost
the first time, to the home-front. Americans
are now feeling the fear and pain being
brought almost to their doorstep. 7.
The President does not have the right to st
violate the constitution, and violate the 1
amendment (right to life), but he does
have the executive power to respond to
emergencies. So in the grand scheme of
things, the President could be staving off a
potential terrorist attack(s) and be

constitutionally defending the country.

However, if his suspects turned out to be
groundless, and he kills harmless innocent
Americans (or a American who couldve
otherwise lived and still have been
stopped), then the President would be
overreaching his executive powers. 2. 8

Justice Department memo reveals

legal case for drone strikes on
Americans

A document, or white paper, was leaked

to NBC news detailing two drone strikes in
2011 against American citizens. This is
different from past killings in that they
were extrajudicial killings of American
citizens. This directly violates
American
principles, as well as the 1st Amendment.
However, it is still within constitutional
limits, as the President does have the
authority to use executive lethal force
against a perceived homeland threat.
The article questions the assurances made
in the memo. The memo reassures the
reader that only terrorists were to be
targeted, and attempts would be made
before resorting to lethal force. However,
the article points out that many of these
restrictions, as well as the criteria for
how a person is determined to be a target
for a drone, and the exact calculation for
how a suspect is dangerous enough to
simply kill instead of capture, are
extremely vague and able to be
manipulated by the government. 8. So yes,
this document has set legal restrictions on
the government and its new powerful
weapon, but the document gives lots of
wiggle roomso much as to encompass a
range of both constitutional, and
unconstitutional (and unethical) killingsto
the executive President. 7. 2.
Killing with a different weapon makes no
difference. The drone strikes simply have
been revealed. Even before drone strikes,

there were many government strikes, and

snipers create the same feeling of killingfrom-afar and unfairness. In that way, its
just that the American public disapproves
of all of these killings. However, the two
drone killings have surfaced in todays
powerful media, while past killings and
operations have been more silent, and
have been kept silent. 1.

Drone Strikes Save Lives,

American and Other

This article presents more of a questioning

standpoint/hypothesis, rather than
information on a subject.
Argues that the government should step in
to protect Americans (and world peace)
from terrorists with lethal and extreme
force. However, it questions the
effectiveness of the use of drone killings.
Drone killings, as mentioned in previous
articles, may just be strengthening the
terrorist ranks. Furthermore, this
unwillingness to make a large scale military
operation or invasion is reminiscent of nonaggression in the past. From U.N. failures to
respond to genocidal threats, to the
appeasement of the Nazi German forces in
WWII, it seems that failure to respond to a
foreign military threat with a large military
operation will actually lead to the
strengthening of the enemy. 3