Essay Example on US Drone Strike Kills 2 Innocents: US & Italian Aid Workers

Introduction

The government of the United States compellingly conceded to the killing of two hostages in April 2015. More imperatively, America used the drone strike that was aiming at an al-Qaida compound area though the officials were unaware of the individuals in the vicinity. The drone killed two people; thus, the US government aid worker and the Italian aid work. The victims were confined in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area by the al-Qaida. And the death of the two innocent people provided exceptional pressure on the US initiatives of the targeted drone killing. Unfortunately, the killing gave pressure to the government to uncover an unprecedented amount of information in what can be described as a higher killing operation. To make it more critical, the senior official for the counter-terrorism authorized the drone killing without clear information on the people in the immediate region, which was the compound regularly visited by the leaders of a-Qaida.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

More importantly, it was against international law, and it was not the responsibility of the US to kill the Italian hostage. Such unlawful act can be corroborated by President Obama's profound regret for the killing of the two people, and announcing that the government would review the operation immediately. Notably, the US secretary Josh Earnest also confirmed that the families of the victims would be compensated and provided more information on the intelligence that facilitated the operation. Earnest reaffirmed that the region was the target based on the intelligence information that indicated a regular visit of the al-Qaida leaders to the area and not the civilians. Therefore, the review of the operation could trigger legitimate questions that could enable the government to alter the protocols for similar operations. He confirmed that the target of the operation was not on the known members of the al-Qaida, but it was targeting the terrorist in the vicinity. Additionally, the drone strike also targeted an al-Qaida fighter, not knowing the person in the area.

Additionally, the president expressed his apology saying that he took the responsibility of the counter-terrorism operations, and the families of the victims deserved to have adequate information about the operation and that America is a democratic nation that commits to openness both in bad times and in good times. To understand the innocence of the victims who were killed, Lo Porto was a hostage of the terrorists as from 2012, and Weinstein was also kidnaped in 2011 by the al-Qaida.

The critics blame the president for conducting a secret counter-terrorism war. According to the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the administration disclosed a critical legal report behind the target killing operation, including the procedure for the list permitting the government to kill innocent people with no exception to its people without trial. But Obama blamed the killing of the innocent people and confirmed that his response to the killing expressed the transparency of the administration as he revealed that the al-Qaida was hiding the presence of such people in the target compound.

The government of Italy also extended condolence to the family of the Italian who was killed in operation. Earnest again said that such a unique, tragic counter-terrorism operation would not be repeated. Even though the operation was lawful based on the counter-terrorism policies, it ended in killing innocent people, and that made the operation unlawful. Understandably, it is believed that a drone strike killed the two individuals, but the time and place of the operation is not clear, as well as the number of the al-Qaida operatives and the number of other civilians who became casualties of the killings.

Brief One: Problem Three

According to the international law's prohibition on assassinations underpinning the Jus in Bello, the international community believed that target killing is unlawful; therefore, the US counter-terrorism operation program that killed the two innocent individuals was unlawful. Target killing destroys the international humanitarian law, thereby degrading the legal frameworks that should provide protection to human rights in any war. More importantly, the drone strike is under assassination; therefore, it is impermissible based on international law. It is worth noting that the counter-terrorism operation program of the United States pursued a drone strike killing that is impermissible according to the international law that guides the prohibition of assassination. Despite the concept of lawful targeting in the armed war of the direct threat to the US, the operation was unlawful as per the international law on the assassination.

Based on the principle of distinction, proportionality, humanity, and the necessity of international law, drones are fundamentally undiscriminating; therefore, they violate the principle of distinction under international law. Similarly, the US program on counter-terrorism operations that utilized the drone strike killing of the innocent people violates the principle of necessity because the US conducted the operation contrary to targets questionable armed value. Notably, the drone targeted innocent individuals and not the armed group.

In light of such principles of the international law, the United States' policy standards and procedures for the utilization of force by the counter-terrorism operations in areas of hostilities, stipulates that the government should ensure conformity to such principles, and the lethal force can only be applied based on the following prerequisites: The existence of a legal basis for the utilization of a lethal force and the lethal force can only be applied on targets that cause perpetual and imminent threat to the people of America.

Also, the counter-terrorism operations can apply lethal force when the following conditions are met: The terrorist target must be present in the area, an assessment indicating that the authorities cannot address the threat to the Americans, an assessment revealing that unarmed civilians will not be killed, and the assessment showing that there is no available alternative that can address the threat on Americans. More significantly, the international legal principle requires that the nation should adhere to the law of sovereignty and armed conflict; therefore, the United States acted unilaterally as the counter-terrorism operation conducted the targeted killing in the foreign territory. Based on the use of drone technology underpinning the international law, the application of such technology in the pursuant of target killings integrally violates the law of international.

According to the concept of force against enemy belligerents under international law, the hostility that occurred between the United States and the al-Qaida did not amount to the level of armed conflict, and that the operations conducted by the counter-terrorism program integrally violated the international law. Based on the concept of self-defense under international law, nations including Pakistan did not consent to the use of lethal force by the United States within their borders, thereby rendering the target killing operation invalid. Similarly, the non-existence of the armed war does not allow the counter-terrorism operations to participate in the targeted killing in the foreign nation, even with the consent of that particular country about the operation.

Additionally, the United States has tremendously failed in the pursuit to achieve its international legal responsibilities based on the self-defense force in several ways. For instance, it has been revealed that America did not report to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) about the operations that were conducted in Pakistan. Again, it is impermissible for the United States to argue based on self-defense right against the non-state players.

According to international law, the United States' counter-terrorism operation that conducted target killings violated the proportionality and necessity of under the Jus Ad Bellum. More imperatively, the United States should exhaust all the procedures for arresting the suspects of terror before conducting target killings; thus, the operations amounted to the violation of international law. Also, the United States has a significant preference for prosecution and detention of the terrorists on the use of lethal force against them, and the killing of innocent unarmed individuals. Finally, it is worth noting that the policy standard of the United States does not allow the counter-terrorism operations to apply the lethal force if the suspect can be captured; thus, the drone strike target killings were unlawful according to the international legal procedures.

Bibliography

Bergen, Peter, and Jennifer Rowland. "Drone wars." The Washington Quarterly 36, no. 3 (2013): 7-26.

Byman, Daniel. "Why drones work: the case for Washington's weapon of choice." Foreign Aff. 92 (2013): 32.

Delmont, Matt. "Drone encounters: Noor Behram, Omer Fast, and visual critiques of drone warfare." American Quarterly 65, no. 1 (2013): 193-202.

Dworkin, Anthony. Drones and targeted killing: Defining a European position. European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), 2013.

Flaherty, Martin S. "The Constitution follows the drone: Targeted killings, legal constraints, and judicial safeguards." Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y 38 (2015): 21.

Heller, Kevin Jon. "'One Hell of a Killing Machine' Signature Strikes and International Law." Journal of International Criminal Justice 11, no. 1 (2013): 89-119.

Johnston, Patrick B., and Anoop K. Sarbahi. "The impact of US drone strikes on terrorism in Pakistan." International Studies Quarterly 60, no. 2 (2016): 203-219.

McCrisken, Trevor. "Obama's drone war." Survival 55, no. 2 (2013): 97-122.

McNeal, Gregory S. "Targeted killing and accountability." Geo. lj 102 (2013): 681.

Smith, Megan, and James Igoe Walsh. "Do drone strikes degrade Al Qaeda? Evidence from propaganda output." Terrorism and Political Violence 25, no. 2 (2013): 311-327.

Spencer, Paul Lewis, and Jon Boone. "Obama regrets drone strike that killed hostages but hails US for transparency." The Guardian 23 (2015).