After 9/11, security and surveillance have taken a huge turn with the advance in technology. In response to this terrorist attack, President Obama wrote a letter to the Congress of the United States, authorizing for the use of military force (AUMF) against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). President Obama viewed these targeted killings as an act of war, but the issue is whether this act of war can be justified. Establishing whether the threat posed actual imminent threat, will determine if the war had a just cause under self-defense with the right intentions.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report on drone strikes discussing the legal justification used to defend the use of drone strikes. This report is clear …show more content…
The threat has to be of extreme level that requires war as a reasonable option. It is also important to note the AUMF only allowed the US to use armed forced against any state, organization, or person linked to 9/11. According to the AUMF, the US has authorization to use force under domestic and international law. However, in Pakistan, the use of drone strikes were targeted to less than 10 percent of the identified targets of the al-Qaeda, and less than 2 percent of all “militants” killed were identified leaders or the al-Qaeda or other terrorist organization. Analyzing this information shows that a majority of drone strikes are not aimed at terrorist individuals but rather an individual who fit the profile of the terrorist or terrorist organization. The continuation of attacks in Pakistan also does not justify their cause. After 9/11 the war was authorized because the government realized how big the threat of the al-Qaeda was. However, after 9/11 there have been no horrific event that matches its size, or have come to knowledge of another attack similar to the threats of 9/11. Instead, the Congress that represents the body of the people that can debate whether war is a possible option. The use of drones by the US was also only publically announced in early 2012 by the Obama administration. But as the body of people that can decide whether war is an option, transparency
The Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report on drone strikes discussing the legal justification used to defend the use of drone strikes. This report is clear …show more content…
The threat has to be of extreme level that requires war as a reasonable option. It is also important to note the AUMF only allowed the US to use armed forced against any state, organization, or person linked to 9/11. According to the AUMF, the US has authorization to use force under domestic and international law. However, in Pakistan, the use of drone strikes were targeted to less than 10 percent of the identified targets of the al-Qaeda, and less than 2 percent of all “militants” killed were identified leaders or the al-Qaeda or other terrorist organization. Analyzing this information shows that a majority of drone strikes are not aimed at terrorist individuals but rather an individual who fit the profile of the terrorist or terrorist organization. The continuation of attacks in Pakistan also does not justify their cause. After 9/11 the war was authorized because the government realized how big the threat of the al-Qaeda was. However, after 9/11 there have been no horrific event that matches its size, or have come to knowledge of another attack similar to the threats of 9/11. Instead, the Congress that represents the body of the people that can debate whether war is a possible option. The use of drones by the US was also only publically announced in early 2012 by the Obama administration. But as the body of people that can decide whether war is an option, transparency