Drones have become a household name in the past few years. Drone strikes seem to be the new face of modern warfare, allowing unmanned aircraft to eliminate determined threats without risk to military personnel. The Obama administration has become synonymous with the use of drones, although they are not the first to utilize them. The new concern is a memo attached to this program outlining the justification of using drone strikes on Americans. Ties to terrorist organizations are likely the backing of the program, however, many are wondering who determines the affiliation.
Members of the legislator are rightly demanding criteria for this decision, worried that the government is overreaching their hand and we can see another Guantanamo situation… on our soil. There is no doubt that the criteria in this memo are blurred, allowing for interpretation as needed. It is too similar to what past presidents have done in order to accomplish certain tasks.
My fear, is how others will interpret this information. Groups of anti-government individuals who are already angry for their gun’s honor believe that this is exactly the type of situation that warrants their ownership. This belief that one day they will have to “rise up” and protect themselves from the tyrannical government will only increase with this information.
Every president, every person in power for that matter, have interpreted unprecedented situations in a way to allow the ends to justify the means. That is nothing new. From Washington’s isolationism, Lincoln’s emancipation, Teddy Roosevelt’s expansion and Truman’s decision to drop a nuclear bomb, history is ripe with interpretation. Defining it for the future is what is crucial here.
By: Courtney Kidd, LMSW
SJS Staff Writer