Nearly 80 people attended the Drone Warfare: Legal, Ethical, and Strategic Issues event on Thursday Sept. 19 to hear three panelists discuss issues regarding the rapid expansion of drone programs.
The event was sponsored by the IUS Civil Liberties Union, as their annual Constitution Day event, and the IUS Common Experience. IUS CLU aimed for the event to educate, inspire, inform and stir critical thinking about drones both domestically and abroad.
Jane Henegar, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, James Barry Jr., professor of philosophy, and Cliff Staten, professor of political science and international studies, acted as panelists and also opened the floor for questions after speaking.
Cliff Staten discussed the strategic issues surrounding drones, touching on the topic of their escalation and why they have become the “preferred weapon.”
Staten said that drones originated during the Bush administration, when less than 50 predator drones were used throughout his presidency. Predator drone use has escalated to an estimated 400-500 strikes throughout the Obama administration.
Drones have become the preferred weapon during war. They are less costly, there is less of a need for troops on the ground, and they have a high success rate. Drones were estimated to have killed between 2,600 and 5,000 al Qaeda members or operatives. They have also stunted al Qaeda’s ability to communicate through technology, which can be easily monitored.
However, numerical data related to drone strikes and deaths often varies and tends to be unreliable. Attacks often occur in al Qaeda controlled areas inaccessible to journalists and numbers are then reported by al Qaeda.
Staten said that civilian casualties are the greatest cost of drones. Drone casualties may also lead to recruitment of new al Qaeda members when a family member has been killed.
However, drones are majorly used for surveillance purposes.
Clay Greenwell, political science sophomore, said that the fear of not knowing exactly what a drone is capable of is what draws people to them.
“The main attraction of this event would be the fear of how it [drones] involves us and that would be drones flown domestically, spying, and the fear of surveillance,” Greenwell said. “It’s a genuine fear, but my opinion would be that if they are going to spy on us they already have helicopters and a lot of means to do that.”
The legality of drones both domestically and abroad, touches on the issues of transparency and due process.
Henegar used the innocent 16-year-old US citizen who was killed by a drone in Yemen as an example of drones violating due process.
“They killed him without proof and due process…that violates a basic compact we have with our citizens,” Henegar said
She also argued that drones raise the issue of transparency when the government refuses to share drone related information. This is an ongoing conflict where civilians ask for information and the government denies their request “for protection against the enemy.”
Brian Everage, IUS alumni and intelligence officer, challenged some of the ideas expressed in the panel.
“It was interesting to hear a different viewpoint from what I’m used to and what I work with,” Everage said. “There is a fine line of whether people believe that we do this to defend them or whether we are doing this to control them.”
“The United States can’t be the world police force, but id rather fight terrorism abroad then fight it on my home ground. I don’t think that everyone has that concept of the possibility of that happening.”Everage said.
Henegar also discussed the “chilling effect” as a consequence to lack of transparency between the government and it’s citizens.
“When a 16 year old is killed in Yemen and you see the treatment of an Arab in the airport you ask, what will the government do to me?” Henegar said.
“You begin to watch what you say, and don’t talk to certain people. This chills your first amendment rights and puts a personal restraint on your first amendment rights.”
The number of drone programs in countries across the world has nearly doubled since 2004, when only 40 countries had drones. Today, more than 75 countries have drone programs.
“As a global leader the US sets precedents for other countries, and other countries will copy drone programs. It’s a drone arms race.” Staten said.
An estimated 10,000 drones are said to be flying over the U.S. by 2020.
Barry spoke about the ethical aspect of drone use. He responded to the popular argument about a different outcome in the Vietnam War if drones had been used during the time.
“Drones allow us to have war with out risks,” Barry said. “We don’t have to win the PR war at home, our soldiers are safe in Las Vegas. We solved the problem of war, apparently.”
He challenged the audience to question what the unintended consequences are when people flying drones kill a person from such a detached distance and then return home.
“There is a lot kind of skewed about what’s going on with drones,” Greenwell said. “I’d say there is a lot of danger with it and there is a lot of danger with foreign countries getting that kind of technology, but for the most part – if carefully done – there could be a lot of benefits.”
Amria Assad
staff
aasad@umail.iu.edu
