#1 The Killing Machines• Drone killing is a new type of warfare in which

technological superiority is so great that the attacking soldier suffers no physical discomfort or danger whatsoever during a fight with an enemy. However, some pilots say that there really is no difference. After all, is it so much more unfair to kill a man armed with not much more than a rifle, with a stealth jet, or a remote control? Either way, the technological advance makes it extremely advantageous for the U.S. soldier. 6

• Drones have evolved to become highly sophisticated and automated even.

• Drone attacks, instead of quelling terrorist attacks, have actually sowed seeds of anger that cause future terrorist attacks. The anger at the unfairness of having family members killed from afar by a drone fuels new terrorist forces. The text claims that is it one of the sources of power the terrorist forces actually feed on. By killing people with drones, the U.S. military may only be strengthening the will of the enemy. 3

#2. Death By Drone, And The Sliding Scale Of Presidential Power

• Presidents have always surpassed their allotted executive power, and used unconstitutional force in times of crisis. However, past uses of excessive power have more or less been justified, and have also only led to the suppression or arrest of U.S. citizens. James argues that Obama’s use of drones to kill Americans is taking unconstitutional wielding of executive power to a whole new level. 2, 7.

• In the constitution, it is clearly stated that Americans have a right to life, as well as proper trial. It is, therefore, highly illegal and against American ideals to take a American citizen’s life as were the examples listed by Frank. 7

• Supposedly, the government is only supposed to kill the high ranking terrorist officers, but drone strikes have killed many younger and seemingly harmless people, including U.S. citizens. This is not only unethical, but shows how ineffective or inefficient drone strikes are against terrorists. 3

• The president does not hold constitutional power to deploy drones against perceived threats, but neither Congress nor the judicial courts have stopped him. It is the lack of resistance, therefore, that the president can use his power unconstitutionally with impunity. 2

#3 Constitution Check: Could the president legally order a drone strike inside the U.S.?

• The power to respond speedily to a emergency foreign threat is implied through the constitution. Theoretically, the president does have the executive power to use lethal force to defend against a terrorist attack. However, the question now discussed is whether or not the president has the power to kill passive Americans suspected of terrorism, in the U.S., with drones. 9. The war has shifted, for almost the first time, to the home-front. Americans are now feeling the fear and pain being brought almost to their doorstep. 7.

• The President does not have the right to violate the constitution, and violate the 1st amendment (right to life), but he does have the executive power to respond to emergencies. So in the grand scheme of things, the President could be staving off a potential terrorist attack(s) and be constitutionally defending the country. However, if his suspects turned out to be groundless, and he kills harmless innocent Americans (or a American who could’ve otherwise lived and still have been stopped), then the President would be overreaching his executive powers. 2. 8

Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

• A document, or “white paper”, was leaked to NBC news detailing two drone strikes in 2011 against American citizens. This is different from past killings in that they were extrajudicial killings of American citizens. This directly violates American principles, as well as the 1st Amendment. However, it is still within constitutional limits, as the President does have the authority to use executive lethal force against a perceived homeland threat.

• The article questions the assurances made in the memo. The memo reassures the reader that only terrorists were to be targeted, and attempts would be made before resorting to lethal force. However, the article points out that many of these “restrictions”, as well as the criteria for how a person is determined to be a target for a drone, and the exact calculation for how a suspect is dangerous enough to simply kill instead of capture, are extremely vague and able to be manipulated by the government. 8. So yes, this document has set legal restrictions on the government and its new powerful weapon, but the document gives lots of wiggle room—so much as to encompass a range of both constitutional, and unconstitutional (and unethical) killings—to the executive President. 7. 2.

• Killing with a different weapon makes no difference. The drone strikes simply have been revealed. Even before drone strikes, there were many government strikes, and snipers create the same feeling of killing-from-afar and unfairness. In that way, it’s just that the American public disapproves of all of these killings. However, the two drone killings have surfaced in today’s powerful media, while past killings and operations have been more silent, and have been kept silent. 1.

Drone Strikes Save Lives, American and Other

• This article presents more of a questioning standpoint/hypothesis, rather than information on a subject.

• Argues that the government should step in to protect Americans (and world peace) from terrorists with lethal and extreme force. However, it questions the effectiveness of the use of drone killings. Drone killings, as mentioned in previous articles, may just be strengthening the terrorist ranks. Furthermore, this unwillingness to make a large scale military operation or invasion is reminiscent of non-aggression in the past. From U.N. failures to respond to genocidal threats, to the appeasement of the Nazi German forces in WWII, it seems that failure to respond to a foreign military threat with a large military operation will actually lead to the strengthening of the enemy. 3