Read the following article:
http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/ap_ca2280e951cf462fbf8e308fd52b7a9b
Answer the following questions:
1. Who is Anwar al-Awlaki?
2. When was the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution passed in Congress?
3. Up until this point, what three institutions could authorize a drone strike?
4. Is it right for President Obama to have the authority to command these strikes?
5. Considering what you read a few weeks ago about Google's purchase of a drone-making company, discuss the ethics of Google having the capability of making drones that will serve this purpose.
Abriana Fornis
ReplyDeleteAnwar al-Awlaki was a militant cleric and former resident of Virginia. Al-Awlaki was killed by drone in Yemen in 2011 for actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens. The Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution was passed in Congress a week after the 9/11 attacks. Up until this point, only the CIA, the Defense Department, and the President could authorize a drone strike. I don't think it is right for President Obama to have the authority to command these strikes because he does not have the military background to lead the strikes, but he should have some input into the strikes. Although it seems a little strange that Google purchased a drone-making company, it does not seem like it is wrong for them to do so. After all, Google is not the authority behind the use of the drones.
Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen that was taken out by U.S drones because he was plotting to kill America citizen. The Authorization for use of military Force resolution was passed in congress a week after 9/11. The three institution the could authorize drone strikes was the CIA, Pentagon and the Justice department. It is not right for President Obama to have Full authority over drone strikes because if the president is busy dealing with other issues. The threat of danger increase the longer the file is on his desk. He should be made aware of the threat and have a say and give his two cent, but let the military of CIA take care of it. They are trained and have the means to take care of business. The power should ne shared between the president and people or agency that specialize in that particular field of work. Google have the capability of making drones is good for the US and a bite unsettling at the same time. why would a search engine want a drone making company? Google is dong a wonderful thing for America. Google maps can pinpoint almost anything or person in any part of the world. The military or CIA can pinpoint a target in no time because most people use Google in some way or form. This could speed up capture of targets or find people of interest. The flip side ,however, is the Google could work for people overseas. Google could work for our enemies. Google is the internet an amoral thing. It depends of how it is used and by whom. A search engine owning a drone making company could also just bring in more revenue and open networking to different audience. Google is just carefully weaving deeper in to the world culture through the internet. Google monopolizing the web can be good and bad depending if Google has a clear head or gets drunk off their growing power.
ReplyDelete1) Anwar al-Awlaki was a former resident of Virginia who was killed by the U.S. because he was a suspected terrorist.
ReplyDelete2) It was passed a week after the 9/11 attacks.
3) The three institutions are the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Justice Department.
4) He has not been involved in the planning of the counterterrorist attacks or any 9/11 terrorist handlings since he was not in office at the time, so no.
5) I feel Google should not hold any military power, and they should not be making drones to kill terrorists of the U.S. If they were to gain military power and the government begin relying on Google, I feel Google would become corrupt. Plus, since Google already has so much information on all of its consumers, it would be super creepy for them to control a part of the government with all of that information.
He is a home grown terrorist. It was passed a week after 9/11. CIA, Defense Department, and the Pentagon. No it is not it should pass through the senate. It is perfectly legal and an ethical conundrum. Google bought it for delivery purposes but if it is used to do harm then it is wrong.
ReplyDelete-Nicholas B. Davis
Kacy Howard
ReplyDelete1.) Anwar al-Awlaki was an American and Yemeni imam and Islamic militant.
2.) September 14, 2001.
3.) Only either CIA or Pentagon drones could go after terrorist targets, even if they were U.S. citizens. The CIA could also fly drones in areas where host countries might object. But the Pentagon can only strike in war zones, in countries that agree to U.S. counterterrorism action or in lawless areas.
4.) I think it is right for Obama to have the authority to command the strikes because they are necessary.
5.) I think it's important for Google to have the capability of making drones because considering how big of a company Google is, it could be a major help to us.
Katy Howard
ReplyDeleteAnwar al-Awlaki was a Virginian resident and militant cleric. He was killed by the U.S. drone in Yemen in 2011. The Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution was passed a week after the 9/11 attacks. The Justice Department, the Pentagon and the CIA can authorize a drone strike. It is not right for President Obama to have the authority to command these strikes. The institutions that can authorize the drone strikes should have the authority. Also, Google having the capability of making drones will be very helpful because it allows deep-learning technology.
Jared Wetzel
ReplyDeleteAnwar al-Awlaki was an American and Yemeni imam and Islamic militant. U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda. September 24, 2001. 1.Proven threat to the U.S. 2. Wanted around the wrold. 3. Cannot be a citizen. No, it is not right. This is beyond any type of rational security measure. I think it is unethical and for Google to own a drone making company as it is for Monsanto to own Blackwater. But i am excited to see Google to become a sovereign military state
1.) involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda
ReplyDelete2.) September 14, 2001
3.) CIA, Pentagon, Military
4.) No.
5.) It's scary to know that Google has tangible resources that can accomplish such things such as killing someone. I believe that Google is gaining to much power and dominating too much of the world.
- Abbi Spencer
Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S citizen and a resident of Virginia who was killed in Yemen in 2011, by a drone, for actively plotting to kill U.S citizens. The Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution was passed a week after the 9/11 attacks. The CIA, Pentagon, and the Justice Department could authorize a drone strike up to this point. Obama is president and that is who the majority of America voted for, therefore; being the Commander and Chief of the military, it is right for President Obama to have the authority to command these strikes, even if we do not all agree with him. Google has very intelligent workers so I do believe it is okay for google to purchase a drone-making company and work on building these drones because of their intelligence, as long as they aren't aloud to strike or authorize strikes, I do not see anything wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteBrooke Gilbert
1.) Anwar al-Awlaki. A militant cleric and former Virginia resident that was killed in Yemen in 2011 by the US using a drone.
ReplyDelete2.) The "Authorization for Use of Military Force" was passed a week after 9/11.
3.) The CIA, Pentagon, and Defense Department are allowed to authorize drones
4.) Obama alone should not have the right. His "command" should be shown to another department of the government to make sure his intent is a wise/correct one.
5.) Google, by creating drones, can profit greatly from the government. Drones will also become more available, becoming a main strategy of attack for the U.S., possibly other countries if they decide to follow suit. Because the real purpose behind Google's creation of drones, the ethics can not be decided.
1.) US citizen killed in Yemen by US drone in 2011
ReplyDelete2.) The AUMF was passed one week after 9/11
3.) The Pentagon, the CIA, and the Defense Department
4.) Yes it is right because the president make more decisions that will not back fire on the US than military officials.
5.) Google does NOT need to have the capability to make drones, and the reason for that is because Google has more information about everybody in America. So all they have to do is draw a name out of their "hat" and determine whether or not they consider that name a threat or not. Just like in airports, if you have an eastern world name more often or not you will be pulled over to the side for investigation.
~ a very upset Azeeza Abdulrauf :( ~
Anwar al-Awlaki is a former militant cleric and Virginia resident killed in Yemen (2011) prior to the new drone policy. The Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed a week after 9/11. A drone strike could be authorize a drone strikes on terrorists even if they were U.S. citizens, and fly drones in areas where host countries might object (only in war zones).
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not believe it's right for Obama to solely command the strikes because it's a lot of pressure and he may not have the necessary experience. Google's ethical obligation and capability for making the drones are blurred. I feel that the potential pay and accolades they may receive for the makes their ethical conquest questionable.
Iyana Gray
Who is Anwar al-Awlaki?
ReplyDeleteAn American citizen who is suspected to be a member of al-Qaida
2. When was the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution passed in Congress? A few days after the 9/11 attacks, September 14, 2001.
Up until this point, what three institutions could authorize a drone strike?
CIA, Pentagon, Justice Department.
Is it right for President Obama to have the authority to command these strikes?
I feel that more people should have a say on it. It should not all be based on the knowledge of one person. More opinions and sayings should help to create a plan.
5. Considering what you read a few weeks ago about Google's purchase of a drone-making company, discuss the ethics of Google having the capability of making drones that will serve this purpose.
By Google being able to make drones, they may also have a say or two in where they will have these drone strikes. Also being able to control, if not able to plan or help plan these strikes, where they are distributed too. Causing them to be in some control of whether or not the strike will happen.
Kaitlyn Elwood
Kaylee Garrett - 2nd Period
ReplyDelete1) Anwar al-Awlaki was an American and Yemeni imam and Islamic militant. U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations.
2) October 2002
3) The CIA, the Pentagon, and the Justice Department
4) No because he was never in the military and he is not over the military. Well he is but that's not the point. The point is that Mr. Obama should worry about the mishaps that are happening in his country at the moment rather than worry about someone else. And besides its not HIS duty to protect the citizens, it's his duty to provide protection.
5) The government’s increased reliance on drones has sparked public debate on two questions: Are drone strikes legal? Are they ethical? In my reading of several news and opinion articles on the issue, legal objections to drones come in three varieties: 1)Drones violate domestic law. Many, or even most, drone strikes take place in Pakistan or other Middle Eastern countries where the US has not declared war against a foreign state, but is instead working with local officials to root out terrorists under some “handshake agreement.” As such, many people feel drone strikes are an unjustified use of presidential and military power. US officials defend drone strikes on the grounds that they do not target a formal state, but a small group of people that have carried out attacks on domestic soil and plan to do so again. Thus, formal warfare laws do not apply (in other words: hey, it’s just the never-ending War on Terror). 2) Drones violate international law, which restricts when and how different states can engage in armed conflict. Also, most drone strikes are carried out by the CIA, which as a civilian agency and a noncombatant under international law is not governed by the same laws of war that cover US military agencies. 3) Drones kill civilians. The Wall Street Journal reported via intelligence officials that since Obama took office, the CIA has used drones to kill 400 to 500 suspected militants, while only 20 civilians have been killed. However, in 2009, Pakistani officials said the strikes had killed roughly 700 civilians and only 14 terrorist leaders. Meanwhile, a New America Foundation analysis in northwest Pakistan from between 2004 to 2010 reports that the strikes killed between 830 and 1210 individuals, of whom 550 to 850 were militants (about two-thirds of the total).
Anwar al-Awlaki was a militant cleric and former Virginia resident that the US killed before the new targeting policy took effect. The Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed a week after 9/11 occured. The Justice Department, the Pentagon and the CIA could all authorize a drone strike. It is right for President Obama to help command these strikes, but he should not be the only one making the decision. It is unethical that Google has the capibility of making drones. With Obama's new targeting law, he is the only one who commands the drone strikes. Google's purchase of the drone-making company is dangerous because it is allowing millions of people to view how to make the drones.
ReplyDelete~Emmy Melchior
1. He is a militant cleric and former Virginia resident killed by drone in Yemen in 2011.
ReplyDelete2. Authorization for Use of Military Force, a resolution Congress passed a week after the 9/11 attacks to target al-Qaida
3. The Justice Department, the Pentagon and the CIA.
4. If it’s to protect our country then I say yes. Also if it’s "legal and constitutional".
5. Why not Google? It appears drones are here to stay so why not Google to manufacture them. If used correctly it could be very useful in the 21st century. Drones have been developed for decades by various countries. They came to their recent military prominence due to two factors: (1) technological advances allowing unmanned flying objects to be accurately guided over large distances and (2) better intelligence gathering on the ground, which makes it possible to pinpoint and strike high-value military targets while keeping civilian casualties and other collateral damage as low as possible.
1. he was a former Virginian resident that was killed by a us drone for being a terrorist
ReplyDelete2. it was passed September 14, 2001
3. the cia the justice department and the pentegon
4.I dont think so there needs to be a committee because if you leave this power in one persons hand they could go crazy and just start killing random people
5. This is not ethical because then a civilian corporation will have the ability to spay on any one they choose and kill any one they please which is crazy to let them do that. the only ones who should have control are the ones with high level security clearence tripp harrison
Timothy Brown
ReplyDeleteAnwar al Awlaki is the man that US killed that was a militant cleric Virginia resident. after 9/11 attacks to target Al-Qaida the Authorization Use of Military Force was passed by congress. CIA, pentagon, and US military is the three institutions that could authorize a drone strike. It is right for Obama to have the authority to command these strikes because he is the commander and the chief of military.
This is not ethical cus google would be saying its okay to kill civilians, even while knowing they are doing so.
Mark Chapman
ReplyDelete1. Anwar al-Awlaki was a former US resident who was killed by a drone operation after being accused of terrorist activities.
2. September 14, 2001
3. The CIA, the Department of Defense, and the Pentagon.
4. Yes, because he is the president. Let's have some faith in his ability.
5. I mean someone has to make the drones, so it might as well be Google. It's not like if Google sold the drone-making company, drones would just stop being produced. It may seem corrupt on the outside, but if there was a treasure chest people were scared to open because of "bad ethics", I would be first in line.
1. Who is Anwar al-Awlaki? He was a former Virginia resident that was killed by a drone in Yemen in 2011, long before the new targeted killing policy took effect.
ReplyDelete2. When was the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution passed in Congress? It passed a week after the 9/11 attacks
3. Up until this point, what three institutions could authorize a drone strike? The Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA.
4. Is it right for President Obama to have the authority to command these strikes? He should be allowed to have some input on it but the three institutions should have more control over it because they are more familiar with it than he is.
5. Considering what you read a few weeks ago about Google's purchase of a drone-making company, discuss the ethics of Google having the capability of making drones that will serve this purpose. It is very ethical that Google will have the capability of making drones that will serve this purpose. They soon will be able to do more capabilities now than they were doing in the past. --Kelsey Skurka
A U.S. citizen killed by a drone strike a few years ago for planning to kill U.S. citizens. the authorization for use of military force resolution was passed last year. The defense Department, Pentagon, and CIA could all authorize a drone strike. Yes, because he is the commander and Chief and should have the power if their is a situation the military needs to respond quickly. Google will have a monopoly on drones and could use this power to strike people on U.S soil that use Bing.
ReplyDelete- Reece Johnson
al-Awlaki was a Muslim Cleric and a former Virginia resident who was also a US citizen who was killed by a drone for actively plotting to kill other US citizens. The Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed a week after the 9-11 attacks to target al- Qaida. Up until this point, the CIA, Pentagon, and the executive branch were able to authorize a drone strike. The president is the commander and chief, however all other avenues of capture, if the person is an American citizen, should be explored. So does he have the authority as the commander and chief? I would say yes. Should he do it without the opinions of other branches of government or the military? No. The ethics of a company like Google which already, in the opinion of many, is delving much too far into the personal lives and information of the everyday American citizen owning a company which designs military robots that are designed to kill people is much much more than just a conflict of interest. A private sector company that would make these robots for the US military exclusively is a good idea. A company built on information gathering i.e. Google would not be the company I would choose to own or run a company that designs military robotics. - Morgan House
ReplyDeleteAnwar al-Awlaki was a former Virginia resident who was killed by a drone in Yemen in 2011 by the U.S. The Authorization for use of Military Force resolution was passed by Congress a week after the 9/11 attacks to target al-Qaida. The three institutions that could authorize a drone strike were the CIA, the defense department, and the Pentagon. Yes, it is right for President Obama to have the authority to command these strikes because it is a matter of national security and the safety of the country is more important than technical aspects of the law. It is ethical for Google to make drones that will serve the purpose of killing terrorists even if they are American citizens. Once again this is a threat to national security and killing the terrorist is justified as long as it benefits the country, and if Google can help keep the country safe they it is ethical for them to construct the drones.
ReplyDeleteSidhanth Chandra
Jala Thomas:
ReplyDeleteAnwar al-Awlaki was the militant cleric and also a former Virginia resident who was killed by Drone in Yemen in 2011 by the U.S military. The Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution was passed in Congress a week after the 9/11 attack. Up until this point, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the Justice Department could authorize a Drone strike. I feel like it's okay for Obama ti have the authority to command these strikes, because either way, he is trying to protect the U.S from being put under attack. The fact that Google bought a Drone- making company and that it is a company here in the U.S, they will probably be asked to make drones to use to strike these attackers, but Google would make money off of making Drones, and it would be using the U.S money.
Anwar al-Alwaki was U.S. citizen who was blown up in a U.S. drone strike. The Authorization for Use of Millitary Force was passed a week after 9/11. The CIA, Pentagon, and Department of Justice could authorize drone strikes. As Commander in Chief, and as we are fighting a war on terror, It is right for President Obama to command these strikes. However he should also consult with his cabinet and military strategists before authorizing an attack. I believe that there are no more ethical problems for google making drones than for Boeing making F18s. Google is a military contractor and I believe that it should be treated as such.
ReplyDeleteJohn McDonough
1. Anwar Al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen from Virginia who was killed by drone in Yemen in 2011.
ReplyDelete2. Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution was passed in Congress one week after the 9/11 attacks.
3. The three institutions are the Justice Department, the Pentagon and President. The only reason the President would get involved would be to make an exception for the CIA to strike.
4. Yes it is right for him to have this power. He is the President. He must protect and defend the constitution and the people of America no matter what it takes.
5. Google is just like any other company trying to make a dollar. They have seen where these drones can improve society. They were not going into the business of defense. Sometimes when you attempt one thing it leads to other missions. It is almost the same argument as guns. They aren't intended for a bad purpose...people just make them that way.
Jared Wetzel
ReplyDeleteAn Islamic militant leader.
2001
The person must have harmed the security of the United States or its citizens in some way. The person must be wanted on a global scale. The person must be a clear threat and unable to be reached by military forces.
No, it is not right. This is beyond any rational security measure.
Google owning a drone-making facility is equally ominous as Monsanto working hand-in-hand with Blackwater. It will be interesting to see how Google operates as a sovereign military state in a few years.