Based upon the Stanford & NYU Law Schools’ report “Living Under Drones,” do you believe that the USA’s current drone campaigns can be properly categorized as acts of terrorism? Be clear as to what definition or characterization of terrorism you are using from our readings or from the class handout. You should defend your choice of definition as well as its application to the case. If these drone campaigns are acts of terrorism, can they still be justified? (Alternatively, you can defend the plausibility of more than one definition and then explain how these plausible approaches would apply to the case.)
In recent years, due to technological advances, the United States has been able to attack people that they have labeled as “enemies” without being face to face with them. Instead, the United States is now able to take out said enemies with the use of drones. The question surrounding this use of drones is not about the morality behind its use, but rather whether or not the United States is justified in its actions committed against those who are harmed be it the enemies or the general population. In this paper, I will explore why the United States current drone campaigns are in fact rightfully categorized as acts of terrorism.
In order to decide whether or not the acts committed can be categorized as acts of terrorism, we must first define what terrorism is. For the purposes of this portion of the paper, let us define terrorism as “The organized use of violence to attack non-combatants ('innocents' in a special sense) or their property for political purposes” (C.A.J. Coady, “Defining Terrorism). It is clear, as demonstrated through “Living Under Drones,” that the United States is not only attacking non-combatants, but they are knowingly doing so. This is not to accuse the United States of directly targeting non-combatants, but they are well aware of the likelihood that non-combatants will be harmed even if they are successful in bringing the “enemies”...