The essay “Shootings” fits the argumentation category when the author provides examples of fatal gun shootings that have occurred around the world in which the author is trying to convenience the reader that assault weapons lead to gun violence. In the essay, the author provides the readers with a very visual and descriptive hook, “the cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing… (pg. 674).” In addition, evidence is also another argumentative concept that the author provides. The author, Gopnik, provides factual supporting evidence on a case, “in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, a gunman killed sixteen children and a teacher at their school (pg.675).” However, Gopnik provides refutation in the essay by stating, “rural
In recent discussions of trumps airstrike, a controversial issue has been whether or not Trumps strike was warranted. On the one hand, Author Tom Smith argues that the syrian strike was a good thing. From this perspective Smith assumes Trump is taking a step in the right direction. On the other hand, however, Author Aldan Heir argues that the syrian strike was illegal. In the words of Heir, one of the view’s main proponents,” These airstrikes are clearly illegal.”
Throughout modern times, one of the American government’s greatest influences in social and political conflicts internationally is the use of covert operations. In the documentary Dirty Wars, based on Jeremy Scahill’s novel, Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield, Scahill’s main goal as an American war journalist is to uncover what NATO or National Atlantic Treaty Organization is hiding beneath all the battles in Afghanistan. What NATO tells war journalists when it comes to night raids are the only times at which they took place. This lead Scahill to investigate in a city named Gardez in Afghanistan that was recently attacked in a night raid, and this event will alter Scahill’s viewpoint on American government policies worldwide. While visiting Gardez, Scahill is shocked as residents told him of U.S soldiers shooting and killing innocent people without a warning or a reason as to open fire and then leaving without ever leaving a trace of there being U.S
With this morality in both conflicts plays a role in the bombing of cities and villages that contained a high concentration of civilians, where the United States believed the enemy to be stationed. It is here where the concept of body counts comes into play and supports the argument of an unjust, immoral war that defied the concepts held by American Exceptionalism. Tirman uses the example of Vietnam to point out argument, where the bombing strategy of “harassment and interdiction fire” was practiced, where there was no proof that enemy targets were destroyed and in the end did more harm than good as “killed a lot of innocents” to produce a number of supposed enemy casualties” (Tirman, The Real Cost of Vietnam). As in Vietnam the excessive bombings
Drones look like little remote control helicopters but with cameras in them. Some people fly these just for fun, but sometimes they can be used in the military. However, they have been seen to be becoming an invasion of privacy. Recently, there was a Kentucky man who shot down a drone that was hovering over the houses in his neighborhoods. In an article, he was asked and interviewed about the situation and said, “...To me, it was the same as trespassing”(Hawkins).
Our Innocent Lives At Stake A drone strike can kill a person in one room of a house, also people in the room next door, to even across the street like a school. There has been cases where the drones have had civilians attacked while along the intended target. These were all unplanned deaths, all innocent deaths. I oppose the use of drones in warfare. From all the drone strikes killing innocent people or putting their lives at stake and ours, is a horrendous movement, that’s why in my opinion I think we shouldn’t have drones.
US NEWS informs us, “Drones in Seattle and Miami are equipped with video cameras capable of taking daytime and nighttime video, as are drones used by the Texas Department of Public Safety.” In 1989 Supreme Court decision ruled that police may use helicopters to peer into semiprivate areas including the backyard of a house without first obtaining a warrant. The Congressional Research Service furthermore states “The legal issues discussed in this report will likely remain unresolved until the civilian use of drones becomes more widespread”. The fourth amendment prohibits any search and seizures without a warrant.
Homeland security legal and ethical issues refer to the complex and nuanced challenges that arise when balancing the need to protect national security with the protection of individual rights and freedoms. These issues can include questions related to surveillance, privacy, civil liberties, and the use of military force, among others. They also include the ethical considerations that must be considered when making decisions about national security policies, such as the use of drones and targeted killings, the treatment of prisoners and detainees, and the handling of classified information. Addressing these legal and ethical issues requires a deep understanding of the law and the ability to navigate complex ethical dilemmas, as well as a commitment
Recently there has been an advancement in the capability of technological innovation that has risen ethical and moral questions of how, when, why, where, and the manner of which such technology should be used. Journalist and public speaker, Conor Friedersdorf, published his speech “Distant Death: The Case for a Moratorium on Drone strikes,” in 2013 in the politically moderate The Atlantic. Because of this moderate view, there is no set biased amongst the audience for Friedersdorf to work against, instead his job is to persuade the audience to agree with his view on a suspension of drone strikes. Friedersdorf has a background in politics, philosophy, and economics that he focuses his journalism and research on, thus the audience would expect
Bush For Murder” that not only should the United States have not gone to war but that George W. Bush is in direct fault for the thousands of United States Soldiers lives lost because of the war. The compelling argument against George W. Bush thickens as Bugliosi in his book argues that Bush’s actions are “incriminating” evidence of these crimes and that he should not be exempt although he is no longer evidence. In this research paper, the argument will be made the George W. Bush was in direct fault for the death of thousands of United States Soldiers and civilians in Iraq because of his actions leading up to and during the Iraq war and his
arguing for drones than he did against them. This is because he uses various experts in order to support his claim and he also uses statistics in a very calculated fashion. To begin with, Shane seems like a very credible person due to the way he establishes ethos with the opinions of many varying experts. The article mentions "So it may be a surprise to find that some moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare." After analyzing the quote it can be seen that these widely differing experts all relate to the subject at hand in one way or another which is an important aspect to keep in mind.
Drones are meant to be used to help out, but they can also cause even more problems, like the increase in terrorism. Like ProCons.org explains, terrorism has increased because drones kill people’s loved ones, which causes them to want revenge from their loved one’s parting. Not only can they kill terrorists and adversaries, but they can also kill innocent people that are not involved in the situation. “Classified documents leaked in Oct. 2015 showed that in one five-month period of drone strikes in Afghanistan, as many as 90 percent of those killed were not the intended targets…” (Drones). From all the drone attacks, people are traumatized because they don’t know when the next attack will be.
Imagine looking up into the sky on a bright, sunny day, only to see a missile flying at you. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, this is exactly what has happened to an estimated 3,500 human beings during drone strikes in foreign countries. The American Government claims that it has the right to assassinate anyone at anyplace and anytime for secret reasons based on secret evidence in a secret process taken on by unidentified individuals. This applies even in America and to American citizens. If this does not scare you, then it should because based on my extensive research of this topic, the United States must abolish our current weaponized drone program because drone strikes kill large numbers of civilians, they create more enemies than they kill, and they are ultimately ineffective.
While these problems may seem counterintuitive to the goals of the airstrikes, they are minute and rather insignificant compared to the results of the airstrikes. Each airstrike performed kills multiple terrorists members with few civilian casualties and no risk to US soldiers. Looking at facts from Proconorg Headlines “Drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia have killed upwards of 3,500 militants, including dozens of high-level commanders implicated in organizing plots against the United States,” the attacks seem to be eliminating more problems than they create. The United States in not completely free of any charges being held against them while performing airstrikes.
When we think about drone or UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), first thing comes to our mind is; frightening, alien looking unmanned aircraft that has been involved with so many bombings and targeted killings. In “Drone Home: What Happens When Drones Return to America”, from Time, Lev Grossman wrote drones are dreaded all around the globe, and possibly they have gotten this fear through the United States Military. Drone technology has been greatly improved last decade, now third of entire Air Force’s fleet is unmanned. U.S Government is sending drones to many war zones to eliminate high-ranking enemies or do surveillance successfully. Even though this rapidly growing technology is changing our perspective of war, it also changing our everyday life drastically to help our community.
