|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
Wings of Contention: Unraveling the CIA's Drone Program-- By JorgeRosario - 21 Apr 2024 Over the last few decades, the United States’ approach to war has been evolving. Unmanned aerial drones have become the new wave in violent conflict and counter-terrorism. They have slowly become the weapon of choice among federal organizations; this being especially true for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Under the Obama administration, the CIA’s paramilitary role was limited through regulations, as other countries began developing their own drone programs in reaction to the United States’ monopoly of the unmanned alternative. However, President Trump wrongfully overturned this decision, removing the regulations and giving the CIA fundamentally ‘free reign’ over these unfeeling, unwavering killing machines. This revitalized autonomy shed light on the dichotomy of the issue: humanitarians safeguarding human life versus Warhawks upholding their use in combat. While the CIA’s drone program has remained largely absolved from harsh regulations since its inception, there should be constraints in place. The use of signature strikes places the lives of non-combatants at a great risk. These types of strikes are almost solely controlled by artificial intelligence and encrypted data, with a human overseer performing only minimal maneuvers. Drones who perform signature strikes will detect patterns of ‘suspicious behavior’ and, from 400 ft in the air, identify what it thinks are terrorist hideouts. However, the drones’ coding has shown to regularly fail and misidentify civilians as targets, prompting the human overseer (who does not have full knowledge on what is making the drone indicate a target) to engage. The fragmentation-type explosion not only kills the supposed ‘terrorist’ but also his wife and children, the latter end being considered collateral damage within the CIA reports. This is precisely what happened to a 70-year-old Yemenise farmer who was misidentified and targeted while loading fertilizer into the back of his truck. These fatal mishaps are what prompted the Obama administration to publicly impose the Jus ad bellum principle of “imminent threat” to their drone program, which required drone pilots to believe their targets would produce immediate harm if not neutralized. While these provisions would, in theory, limit the number of non-combatant casualties, it was discovered that Obama signed secret waivers allowing the CIA to continue their signature strikes in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Michael Boyle correctly depicts the reality that “drone strikes corrode the stability and legitimacy of local governments, deepen anti-American sentiment and create new recruits for Islamist networks aiming to overthrow these governments”. As individuals see their neighbors suffer at the hands of the U.S drone program, they become more inclined to support radicalized groups that claim to protect Arabian people from the encroaching West. While limiting the number of civilian casualties and avoiding the emergence of other radicalized groups are reasons for why the CIA should be constrained, the other side of the spectrum sees the CIA as a fully rational and autonomous organization that should be able to make life or death decisions on its own. Senate Republicans argue that a reason why the CIA drone program should be left to the complete discretion of the Agency is a simple matter of national security. The drone program has remained largely a secret since its very inception. The CIA has developed strategies for these weapons of war that are in a constant state of modification to be faster, deadlier, and more autonomous. With these developments in place, the CIA states that it fears “enemies of the Nation [being] informed of our developments, and prepared to mitigate their effectiveness.” Transferring autonomy to the Department of Defense, would place the drone program under is strict regulation and public scrutiny. Simply, the advances in drone usage, that have aided tremendously in maintaining national security both mainland and abroad, are only possible because they have been done in secret and not under the glaring eye of the federal government. Regulating the CIA drone program would not only hinder their ability to act when they see a threat, but tremendously diminish their psychological effect on terrorist organizations. Daniel Byman explains that “the reason drones cause fear in terrorists is because they can loiter above a targeted area for hours waiting for the right time to strike,” which ultimately is made possible by the autonomous software the federal government is seeking to regulate. The programming of signature strikes have turned “command and training structures into a liability,” the buzz of the drone seems to get closer and closer in the mind of the terrorist. For example, when the CIA identified an al-Qaeda base in Yemen, they immediately targeted and killed the militants, among them Nasir al-Wuhayshi, an alleged leader of the extremist group. Under the imposed regulations, the CIA would have to survey the entire area for civilians, get approval from the Department of Defense, and only then could the drones act. The unproductive nature of this approach would make drones ineffective in a cost-benefit analysis, even though they are one the most refined weapons of war to date, leading to a regression towards older methods of neutralization such as foot soldiers. While regulations are originally meant to safeguard due process and protect lives, they impede the ability of the CIA to protect against radicalized groups and ultimately put more lives at risk, as American soldiers would pay the price of the effects brought on by these constraints. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles and drones does not seem to be slowing down anytime soon. The proliferation of these technologically advanced weapons of war has sparked a crossroads into how the CIA should either be regulated by the federal government or be left to use its own discretion when utilizing drones. This debate raises fundamental questions about the balance between security, accountability, and ethical considerations. The regulation of CIA drone operations should prioritize both national security imperatives and respect for human rights, aiming to minimize harm to civilians while effectively countering threats to global stability. Regulations and constraints may be enacted and reversed by congressional action, however, this same principle of reactive correction does not apply to human life.You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
