Cia's Argument Against The Fairness Of Drones In Pakistan

1003 Words 4 Pages
Those who are sceptical about the drones and other autonomous weapons can also make an argument against it using fairness. As drones are operated from a different continent, the operator is not risking his or her own life; the only risk is the risk of losing or destroying the drone. It may be unfair, because the people on the armed conflict territories risk their lives so it is unfair to them. Additionally, more developed countries have more choice of weapons, which may be also much more advanced than the weapons available, for example in Pakistan. Pakistan is poorer country than the U.S. so their means to defend themselves are weaker comparing to the means of the attackers with hundreds of drones loaded with the newest technology and sensors available all around the world.

It is also worth mentioning that the critics’ arguments include the privacy issues. One of the main functions of drones is surveillance. This surveillance provides CIA with scans of the buildings, high-resolution photos of
…show more content…
Most of civilians may be unaware of being watched if there is one drone flying around the area and still the information about them is being gathered without their knowledge and consent. The CIA’s argument is that they have to gather information to correctly identify the suspect and based on this information decide whether to strike or not. How the information gathering works puts a shadow on it because when there are innocent civilians dead, including children, because of the information gathered, the CIA is doing it wrong.

The Pakistan Court is one that ruled CIA drone strikes as an illegal war crime. Before the Peshawar High Court ruled the illegality of the CIA drone strikes , the United Nations fact found that such drone strikes are in the violation of

Related Documents