SUSTAINABLE CHANGE. SACRIFICIAL LIVING.
REJECT APATHY
ATTACK OF THE DRONES hen a memo from the Justice Department surfaced in February of this year, it cast a new light on one of the biggest modern military secrets— and not a flattering one. The 16-page government document detailed previously unheard of details on the United States’ drone policy, perhaps most alarming among them, the legality of executing drone or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) strikes against U.S. citizens. And the lawful conditions for targeting American citizens aren’t comforting, either. The memo reveals three: the person must be a ranking Al-Qaeda official, the person must pose an imminent threat to America and their live capture must be determined unfeasible. While it’s been clarified that drone strikes are reserved only for an “imminent threat,” the Obama Administration also noted that this “does not require the U.S. to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
W
[ B Y
1 OF 7 OUT
38
REJECT APATHY
T H E
Drone strikes kill a militant leader (The Council on Foreign Relations)
MAY/JUNE 2013
N U M B E R S ]
4,700
Estimate of people killed by U.S. drone strikes (Human Rights Watch)
These abstract regulations soon had citizens and politicians alike sounding the alarm for the policy’s evasive sidestep of judicial due process— what some think could turn into a slippery slope. Then, in March, reports emerged that the drone program is poised to migrate from the responsibility of the CIA to the Department of Defense— which may allow for increased transparency and tighter strike regulations. But on top of the legal ramifications, questions of ethics loom: What does the ability to remotely push a button and end a life mean for human life and dignity? What are the implications of these unclear rules of engagement for war ethics and loss of life? It remains to be seen what will happen next with the U.S. drone policy, but one thing is certain. As Christians widen the lens on the pro-life movement from abortion to any and all circumstances in which human life may be at risk, they now have a new justice concern to consider: what many are calling the U.S. counterterrorism strategy’s “weapon of choice.”