By: Amir Afshar
“It’s a bird, it’s a plan, no it’s an armed surveillance drone!” What comes to mind when picturing a surveillance drone? Many people including myself will most likely respond that they picture blips in the sky used to monitor terrorist activity and assist in warfare. Drone opponents proclaim that use of these drones cause too many civilian casualties. Loose oversight is also mentioned as a problem. There are many questions surrounding both armed and unarmed surveillance drones. Do the benefits of using these drones outweigh potential or realized consequences? Drones could prove to be valuable assets that protect American lives.
Drones are mainly used by the military for “surveillance and targeted killings." They are becoming increasingly advanced and can carry out important missions without risking lives of military personnel. There are different types of drones such as the armed MQ-1B Predator that is used for long endurance, intelligence gathering missions and the MQ-9 Reaper for taking out high-priority targets. The drones carry visual sensors that enable them to focus on targets and identify if individuals are carrying a weapon. In this new age of robotic warfare, it seems ever more pertinent to consider the ramifications of drone use.
Unfortunately the US surveillance drones are not as precise and effective as supporters might like to believe. “Since 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 militant leaders which only accounts for a mere two percent of all drone-related fatalities” (New America Foundation). New America Foundation’s Year of the Drone project reports that somewhere between 1,584 and 2,716 “militants” have been killed in Pakistan since 2004, and between 152 and 191 civilians (and 130-268 “unknowns”). The US considers all military aged males in a strike zone to be considered “combatants” and there is a chronic underreporting of civilian casualties. Media reports on the strikes tend to conflict on the number of victims and location of the strikes. It is difficult to measure the aggregate effect of a drone strike.
While it is true that these drones are imprecise weapons, they can still be utilized to protect citizens from looming threats. For example, the LAPD is now using surveillance drones to find alleged domestic terrorist Christopher Dorner. They can save law enforcement valuable time that is needed to discover and monitor targets. Drones are also a rapidly growing form of technology that is now being used outside of the military sector. The NOAA uses drones to study animal behavior and ecosystems. There is more limited contact between the animals and humans which is safer for all involved. Journalists and sport photographers can use them instead of expensive helicopters and the utility industry may begin using them to find downed power lines.
The positives of employing drone technology seem too enticing to get rid of the program. Drones improve overall human safety and are invaluable in dispatching threats. They minimize risk both in and outside of the war zone. They are another addition to Gilliam and Monahan’s surveillance society.
A drone is nothing more then a tool, like a hammer, computer, car, knife, and dare I say... a gun. I like how you stated all the wonderful things they can and are being used for. Just like guns, we gotta change the norms and laws revolved around drones. There is obviously issues of collateral damage and sovereignty revolved around drones. However, there is a pilot on a joystick receiving orders from a chain of command all the way up to the White House carrying out the drone attacks. The issue is with the chain leading to the bomb dropping, not the tool that carries it. Drones themselves are a fun and exciting technology and I cant wait to see what other beneficiary uses we find for them.
ReplyDelete-Yunus
Interesting article. I wonder how many other drone strikes have occurred but were not reported or added to the aggregate sum by the New America Foundation.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that drones can be extremely useful for advancing the mission of domestic safety and execution of military operations. However, as the article points out, there are certainly downsides to it. However, it appears that the drones are becoming more sophisticated and accurate over the years as the article reports a much lower incidence of crashing/malfunctioning and non-combatant casualties. Hopefully, greater caution will be used until further gains are made regarding precision and safety.
As Yunus alludes to, the decision-makers are the ones who control how the drones are used, and I believe that if limitations are imposed upon them and enforced, then drones will be very beneficial for our country.
Yes and there is a big push to market drones to municipal and state law enforcement agencies (see recent article in NYTimes) with the claim that they are less expensive and more effective than helicopters.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting article. I enjoyed the way that you juxtaposed the pros and cons regarding the use of drones on American soil. However, I have to disagree with you and others who agree that the benefits of using drones outweigh the dangers, partly because the reasons given forth aren't very compelling. It also seems to me as if there isn't much information on the benefits of using drones in the U.S., especially when they rarely have done so. So to be frank, I'd have to say that the only way we can ever assume that drones can "still be utilized to protect citizens from looming threats" is to follow their track record. Just as you stated, "Since 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 militant leaders which only accounts for a mere two percent of all drone-related fatalities.” If drones have mainly been used for counter-terrorism efforts, and have barely even been accurate, then how can we safely and surely say that they would be safe to be used on American soil.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, that is all a facade, a veil hiding the real truth behind why the government would like to use it. Obviously, I believe its because Big Brother has figured out a new clandestine way of conducting surveillance on its citizens. If that wasn't enough for you, then take a look at the recent case where a drone attack was used to kill an American citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi off U.S. soil in Yemen, as well as his 16 year old son who was also an American citizen without allowing them the right to a fair trial, as dictated by the constitution.
All this talk about the possible benefits of utilizing drones on American soil, to me personally, is unprecedented and not welcomed. Observe how people now behave that there is surveillance around ever corner, so blatant and obvious that it is overlooked as normal and very rarely questioned. Facebook, internet, phones, security cameras, call logs, etc. Everything is collected and kept, most of the time, without one's knowledge. Now, imagine a world where there is not only visible surveillance everywhere, but a mode of surveillance that also has the capability of monitoring your every move from thousands of miles away...oh ya, and they have the capability to kill you too.
It's always interesting to see how the US military is using their technology. I believe that drones are useful, and will be a vital tool for America. I am looking at it from an intelligence gathering point though. Most of the drones are used to gather intelligence for the military, and help them conduct missions. I don't believe it is too often, that they are used to assassinate an individual. Most of that work is probably reserved for special forces. Maybe in the future there will be less of a reliance on special forces, and more of reliance on drones, but I don't think that is the case for now. I don't see much of a use for drones domestically. They can be useful. But the US government has many other methods of surveillance. Plus the National Guard has their own air force pilots that protect our borders. Im sure in serious scenarios, these planes can be called to action. Although I don't see much use for it, I don't see a problem with the use of it domestically. The US government is already using Satellite Imagery to monitor the world. It is not known though the exact capabilities of their satellite imagery. What is known is that they can get images better than that of google maps. So if they can use these satellites, then there shouldn't be too much of a problem with using drones domestically. Unless they were constantly being used to kill people, but I'm sure there will be legal issues in the future dealing with that.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, great topic.
-Alexander Juha
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere's no question that drones are a significant and powerful surveillance tool, and as with other powerful tools can be used for positive activities as long as there is strict regulation on what it can and cannot be used for. It may save lives of officers who would otherwise do the surveilling as well as help to more effectively monitor crime through both a preventative aspect (that is, by deterring crime), and also an apprehension rate. There is a possibility of abuse by government, but again, that can be remedied through strict regulation and procedures. The public is always really apprehensive to accept new procedures when there is even a hint that it might invade their rights. This might be a provocative example, but drones are like deadly weapons: they can be used for good or they can be used for bad.
ReplyDelete-Cameron Ghazzagh
Yes, I would agree with you that drone surveillance has many benefits. For instance, drone technology helped to kill Osama Bin Laden by providing the White House with imagery of his compound in Pakistan. However, we must be worried with the people that we target and not simply the sheer number of killings and targetings that have taken place. As recently brought to light on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC, drones are now being used to target not only alleged foreign terrorists but Americans as well. In potentially the highest profile drone killing to date, the drone killing of American Anwar Al-Aulauqi forces us to reexamine who we target and the justifications for using drones against Americans and potentially innocent persons.
ReplyDelete-Michael Bergin
I thought this was a really good topic to explore, given that our policing and surveillance discourses have been more focused on their application to the private and individual level rather than analyzing the propensity of these new technologies to effect large-scale, international change. While the the great militant power of these drones is a great cause for concern and tragedies are likely unavoidable, I liked reading Afshar's insight into the arguments on both sides of this issue. As has been articulated in previous comments, what leaders choose to do with this power will ultimately decide the role it will play in our increasingly fearful society. Like the officer from Berkeley Police Department explained in lecture on Tuesday 2/19, problems with limited resources and turbulent political dynamics will be important arbiters of the "proper" application of these new technologies. It is clear that technology this advanced and powerful will not be limited only to counter-terrorism efforts. As Afshar indicated already, "drones are also a rapidly growing form of technology that is now being used outside of the military sector." What we should all be watchful for is where politics will dictate that this technology be used beyond the military sector. Bentham's panopticon has taken the form in our homes and our institutions, and drones can be another way in which our society increasingly adopts what was once a simple tract on penitentiary management
ReplyDelete- Christine Sun
Nice topic as this seems to be a relevant point with Dorner being the first person to be targeted by drones on US soil. There are definitely issues with how this will be used, as the killings of innocent civilians have certainly resulted from this technology. It is unclear how this can be justified under the legal standards of the United States as taking any innocent lives should be highly scrutinized. That being said it is all in how these drones are used because, as mentioned before, they are a tool. In the case of Dorner they could have been useful in finding him more quickly to prevent more casualties or to help officers avoid walking into an ambush. These issues are never simple.
ReplyDelete-Dmitriy Starkov
The use of drones is another surveillance technology being used on civilians to track any kind of unusual activities that may be a potential threat to others or any kind of behavior. This has however led to some fatalities. Inspite of this, the technology should be improved so as to ensure safety of people.
ReplyDelete- Sehun Lee