target killing might be a necessary evil in order to maintain and protect the ideals of the American people. Sometimes it is necessary to act quickly, precisely, and secretly in order to neutralize a threat to prevent something greater from happening. Also, if the government were to alert the people of its actions, it would affect the outcome of the missions. Because of this there is a thin line between what should be accepted when pertaining to drone use and target killings. Even though target killings might be a benefit to national security it is important to address the ethical issues that can be caused. One ethical issue is that target killings are often used to eliminate the leaders of the opposition in order to prevent the opposition
from acting, but they often result in a the killing of many people instead of just the leaders (Coll). This is because often times the opposition to the United States are religious regimes that operate around an ideology so that when you kill one leader several more can take his place (Coll). Also target killings can cause a country or regime to turn into chaos. If the United States government assassinates the leader of a country, the country will no longer someone to organize it. This could lead to further attacks by other countries or cause internal conflict to arise from within the country. Lastly, target killing are unethical because they leave no one responsible. This can cause a country to be manipulated as well as cause further problems. Combining target killing with drones further intensifies the issues that are already causing negative effects throughout the world.
Controversy has plagued America’s presence in the Middle East and America’s usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) contributes vastly to this controversy. Their usefulness and ability to keep allied troops out of harm’s reach is hardly disputed. However, their presence in countries that are not at war with America, such as Pakistan and Yemen, is something contested. People that see the implications of drone use are paying special attention to the civilian casualty count, world perspective, and the legality of drone operations in non-combative states. The use of drone technology in the countries of Yemen and Pakistan are having negative consequences. In a broad spectrum, unconsented drone strikes are illegal according to the laws of armed conflict, unethical, and are imposing a moral obligation upon those who use them. These issues are all of great importance and need to be addressed. Their legality is also something of great importance and begins with abiding to the Laws of Armed Conflict.
Byman’s first argument is that US drone strikes are extremely efficient in their purpose: eliminating high value targets in foreign countries that pose a threat to national security. He cities a study done by the New America Foundation, which found that “U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen” (Byman 1). Of these 3,300 militants, over 50 were senior leaders of either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Additionally, drone strikes indirectly hinder communication between terrorist leaders and their operatives. In an effort to avoid detection, many foreign militants have stopped using cell phones and other electronic forms of communication. Although the elimination of technology makes it harder to find high value targets, it also significantly impacts their ability to communicate, which reduces the amount of organized attacks. Without considering the cost of civilian casualties or other negative impacts associated with the drone strikes, it is clear that UAV drones have been effective in eliminating foreign threats.
NB: I would like to state a couple of points about the CIA’s drone operations. The CIA is not limited by war zones and is sanctioned to conduct covert operations in any area that is considered significant. Moreover, the executive branch does not blatantly sanction CIA operations without pondering over the information presented to it. Also, there is a congressional oversight committee that sets parameters in which the organization can operate within; these are usually agreed behind closed doors or during classified sessions. This does not mean that all participants concerned do not make bad judgment calls.
After reading The “Most Dangerous Game” we, as a class, were asked whether or not it is considered correct to kill someone but, like a ballot, there were mixed results. This can branch out into a wide variety of topics ranging from abortion to downright murder. “Most Dangerous game” is a short story about a man named Rainsford who gets saved after a boat crash. The man who saved him, General Zaroff, is a hunter. A trait both share in common. However, Zaroff kills humans rather than animals in that the hunt is more thrilling. Of course, there is a disagreement on the subject matter to further the plot. Rainsford is completely opposed to the idea of killing his own kind. We also analyzed the film, “The Hunger Games”. Katniss Everdeen was forced into an arena where the only way to stay alive was to kill others. Both pieces of literature are a survival of the fittest test. Both had justifiable reasons for killing and it made reputable, however morbid, sense.
An inmate by the name of Gary Graham drew several protestors to a Huntsville unit in the year 2000; they were there in opposition to Graham’s execution. This day finally came after nineteen years on death row and four appeals. With him being a repeat offender he was not new to this side of the justice system, but after being put in prison he became a political activist who worked to abolish the death penalty. People who stood against his execution argued that his case still had reasonable doubt, he was rehabilitating himself, and his punishment would cause major harm to his family. Aside from that you have the advocates arguing that you have to set example for others, so you must carry out the punishment that was given, and while the execution may harm the offender’s family it will give the victims’ families closure for his crimes.
Introduction: Job David Guerrero lived in downtown San Diego when he was suspected of attacking five homeless men with serious upper-body injuries. Two of which were found dead with their bodies set on fire. Guerrero was linked to the murders form eyewitness testimony and video camera footage. Guerrero should deserve the death penalty under the act of which he commits a murder. This policy of action is morally justified through Lex Talionis, Kantian ethics, Gelernter and the social contract. Although arguments such as Jeffrey Reiman’s might oppose the death penalty and support lesser punishment, my position is a stronger alternative.
In this paper I will ask three people four different questions about their views on the death penalty. The first question I asked was “Why do you feel the death penalty is wrong?” Question number two, “Does the death penalty help protect the public and discourage crime?” Question number three, “Do you consider the death penalty cruel and unusual?” The final question, “Is the death penalty economically justifiable and cost effective?”
No, I do not believe the death penalty should be in use in today’s society because a loss of freedom cannot compare to a loss of life, as a human life will forever be more valuable than any material good. The death penalty is wrong for many reasons, however, strong cases why it should be abolished are; the death penalty is racist and punishes the poor, condemns the innocent to die, and capital punishment does not deter crime. The death penalty tends to be harsher on poor individuals. Innocent individuals who cannot afford a quality defense often have a greater chance to be put to death. Inadequate defense is a main reason why some death penalty cases are reversed. Racism is another reason the death penalty is wrong, but I consider the two sides to be similar. Looking
The death penalty was around for many years, though we do not really hear much about it today. The death penalty was used as a way of punishment for committing the most serious crimes. This punishment was executed in various ways, all of them leading to the death of the person being executed. However, there are reasons why this punishment is no longer being used today.
Mass murderers are a danger to society. These killers are malevolent monsters with the desire to kill, and they are nothing new to the general public of today. According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as the killing of 3 or more people on the same day or in a single event. Such killings are rare in the sense that 96% of murders have only one victim while less than 1% have 5 or more. One question that people may have is, “What goes on in their mind?” or “Why do they do this?”. What makes a murderer a murderer is their type, traits, motives, and methods.
Does the death penalty deter crime? If so, why are crime rates in the United States high compared to those in other nations?
Today in this day and age the world is filled with hate and violence and other terrible things. People use weapons and other objects to cause terror on others for many reasons such as power and wealth. Firearms are one of the weapons someone may use to harm or rule over others because of the danger the weapon can cause. Over the years with gun violence and killings, some people want to get rid of the citizens right to purchase and own firearms. Although gun violence bad, by taking a person’s right to bear arms will not solve the problem with gun violence in todays society.
The mass killer's victims may not be chosen for any other reason than being in
More than thirty-five political leaders have been assassinated since 1825. The assassin and the political leader had different beliefs and ways they thought the government should have been run. It is thought by some, that assassination is the wrong choice to make when it comes to differences in beliefs. There are many reasons why people have different thoughts and actions on controversial subjects. Many people believe that killing is the wrong choice to make because it goes against our legal system, and it leads to social and political chaos. Lastly, killing is never justified based on religious beliefs.
...only imagine how hazardous this world we live in become. Amongst countries this can become an international competition to make drones to be used as a factor. When other nations see this particular country is using some type of technology to improve their military system then they would want part of it as well. The drone practice can cause to escalate if other countries adopt to this new technology for their own reason of protection. There will be no turning back because the government of that country would take advantage of these drones to use it towards the citizens instead of using for “terrorist”. The use of these drones is definitely immoral and unethical but some may argue that the of drones as protection against “terrorist” even though as we can see it kills innocent people, creates more terrorists, causes psychological disorders, and violates privacy. (Cole)