Why Are Armed Drone Strikes So Controversial? The armed drone strikes that America perpetrates in other countries have been a subject of controversy since their birth, raising numerous questions in regards to morality, legality, and the definitions of previously accepted legal terms. The first known drone strike against suspected terrorists took place in November 2002, under the Bush Administration. When President Obama took office, he expanded on the program, ordering five times more strikes in his first term than Bush did in all of his eight years in office. Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia have killed between 3,011 and 5,316 people since 2002. Accurate data on how many of these people were civilians is not available, since …show more content…
While this use of armed force does meet one of the criteria for armed conflict, there is another criteria to be met: each non-governmental parties involved in the conflict must have an organized chain of command and be able to carry out military operations. Those who oppose the use of drone strikes question exactly what organized party the U.S. is targeting. President Obama claims that the U.S. is at war with al-Qaeda and their associated forces. But how the president defines ‘associated forces’ is unclear, which makes the idea that this organization is really organized as one force, with a responsible leader and military functions questionable. In one sense, we are obviously in an armed conflict, since all parties are armed and conflicting. But in a legal sense, the question at hand is vague, and the answer seemingly more …show more content…
One key element of International Humanitarian Law is the necessity and proportionality. Article 57 of the first Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions says that all states must not launch an attack that is expected to cause harm to civilians that would be excessive for the expected military advantage. Daniel Webster has described an imminent threat as being "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” If this is the case with every drone strike target, it’s clear that they are justified in their use of lethal force. However, the Obama administration defines ‘imminent’ as ‘expected to occur in the next sixty days’, which is clearly different. Those who don’t support drone strikes would argue that if a threat is expected to occur at some point in the next sixty days, there is clearly a moment for deliberation. While it could be decided that a threat cannot be dealt with in any other way besides lethal force, it is possible that a threat could be dealt with in a more diplomatic way. Article 57 can be read in support of this, as it states that when there are several options that will bring a similar military advantage, the one that will cause the least harm to civilians must be selected. However, Article 57 can also be read in support of drone strikes, if one considers them to be the only way to attain the military advantage they