Catlin Bender Source 4

Are the use of drones legal without requiring the country to be at war wit h"targeted country"?
Wall, Tyler, and Torin Monahan. "Surveillance And Violence From Afar: The Politics Of Drones And Liminal Security-Scapes."Theoretical Criminology 15.3 (2011): 239-254. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.

This article consisted of discussing the legality of drone usage in foreign countries. It stated the War Powers Act of 1973. This stated that Congress is who declares war with countries, not the President, but the President may send troops onto foreign soil for 90 days (3 months) before Congress approves or disapproves of his actions towards the selected nation. The question of the use of drones as armed forces is what is debated of if they are allowed to be longer than the selected time or not. The next situation brought up, was that if drones that strike people and/or the ones that are used for surveillance are labeled under this Act or not. The article goes on to explain how drones have helped the U.S. with the war on terror, stating that majority of their usage was to be scanning areas for targets and enemy movement. After discussing the war on terror, they bring up how the benefited cost difference of unmanned compared manned aerial craft, and the reality of troops coming home and learning to use drone technology because of the increase wave usage.

I questioned the bias or lack of bias of this report article. But first, I understand the benefits and now have full understanding of how drones affect the War Powers Act. Lawyers have looked over and analyzed drone usage against the Act and concluded that for surveillance they are constitutional, but drone strikes are the side that is in hot water. Which I can understand why they are, because of the idea of an unfair advantage of striking one without their knowledge of having a drone ready to fire on them. Here is where I am concerned, because as a patriot of the U.S. I feel that it is fine to do this so an enemy can be taken out to end their terror, but as a caring human, those whom are caught in the middle-innocents- I feel that it is not fair for them along with not a fair fight against our target. I rationalize this with that ending their life ends the terror they bring unto others, and in the art of war, innocents are collateral damage. I feel that my conscience overpowers the idea of killing innocents, but in the idea of the target being taken without their knowledge of the strike coming does not bother me. I am glad that drones have helped in the war on terror for tracking and surveying many areas to narrow in on our targets. Terror is a broad concept to be at war with, so not having one particular person can be difficult distinguishing who is a target-one person in a group or the whole group. I like the idea of allowing troops to come home, but "playing war" at work and coming home to their normal lives can be difficult for some. I feel that nothing as far as what they are doing should change, just allow help sessions and plenty of destressing exercises with breaks should be preventable.

This source showed me more on the broad topic and allowing me to see into knit picky topics within the idea of ethical and legal situations of drone usage. The source matched with other as far as that it hard for pilots to go home and act normal and tat everything is fine with them. I understand this problem, because the stress their surveying and wanting to find targets along with guiding their brothers, then going home to their families to hope that what they leave at work is fine and no problems occur. As far as the legality of drone usage, this source showed this Act of 1973 and how lawyers looked into it all. No source truly showed me this insight and what is legal and what was considered not. I appreciated this to know more of this to understand the ethical reasoning to use these or not. The conversation is heavily leaned to the legality of drones. These facts are still debatable because these are opinions that were in favor of needing them, some interpretation of the Constitution can shed a different light for the effects and necessities of the drones. Some interpretations allow some room to debate this topic. I agree with that the drones need to be used because it needs to happen and it allows troops to come home.

My questions are the same of understanding the legality of drone usage whether it be surveillance or strikes. My research will still be looking into the usage and what the pilot goes through. I have answered most of my questions but I may still look into different sides of the debate against drones.