Even if raids end in a successful arrest, a major problem arises-- what to do with the detainee. Most intelligence gathered in an interrogation is not admissible in a court, and releasing this information risks revealing undercover government agents, sources, and important details. The security of government agents and outside sources is crucial, and risking exposing their identity is not an option. Although raids can result in multiple benefits, there are also many risks which can be avoided through utilizing drone strikes.
Conceivably, the biggest benefit resulting from foreign drone strikes is the security our nation gains after eliminating the paramount militant leaders across the world. Targeting key jihadists in hopes of eradicating these leaders considerably lowers the risk of dangerous plots against America and western countries. Since these important …show more content…
Article fifty-one of the United Nations Charter states a nation has an inherent right to self-defense when an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. Some argue article fifty-one only applies when the host country consents to allow operations in their country. However, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have all officially consented to drone strikes because they are incapable of controlling terrorist groups themselves within their borders.
In the article, “Anticipatory Self-Defense Under International Law”, written by Leo Van Den Hole, he argues anticipatory self-defense is a form of the type of self-defense described in article fifty-one of the UN Charter; therefore, he believes this is proof to be legal under international law (Van Den Hole 1). Anticipatory self-defense is foreseeing events which could result in mass casualties and taking action before they happen. Our country would be foolish to not capitalize on an opportunity to prevent a potential attack on American
Conceivably, the biggest benefit resulting from foreign drone strikes is the security our nation gains after eliminating the paramount militant leaders across the world. Targeting key jihadists in hopes of eradicating these leaders considerably lowers the risk of dangerous plots against America and western countries. Since these important …show more content…
Article fifty-one of the United Nations Charter states a nation has an inherent right to self-defense when an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. Some argue article fifty-one only applies when the host country consents to allow operations in their country. However, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have all officially consented to drone strikes because they are incapable of controlling terrorist groups themselves within their borders.
In the article, “Anticipatory Self-Defense Under International Law”, written by Leo Van Den Hole, he argues anticipatory self-defense is a form of the type of self-defense described in article fifty-one of the UN Charter; therefore, he believes this is proof to be legal under international law (Van Den Hole 1). Anticipatory self-defense is foreseeing events which could result in mass casualties and taking action before they happen. Our country would be foolish to not capitalize on an opportunity to prevent a potential attack on American