Week #3 The National Security Agency and Drone Warfare

National Security Agency:

Thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, U.S. citizens and the rest of the world now know more about how the U.S. government has been spying on its citizens and on people who have contact with its citizens.  The major question is whether or not this is legal, and will American citizens allow the spying for the sake of national security?

Since 2001, when the Patriot Act was passed under the Bush administration, the government has legally had the right to tap into Verizon cell phone towers to monitor who their customers are calling, the duration of the call, and essentially track where the call is coming from.  It's not certain how long this has been going on, but it's been arguably legal since 2001, and has been happening since 2006 when the first whistleblower on the issue emerged.

Here's what's good about the NSA:  Congress has been briefed.  The NSA seemingly has been open with Congress on its surveillance programs, so it's not just one man or one agency calling the shots.  To some extent, the NSA is still held liable to Congress.
It protects our freedom.  The age old argument now about 'keeping terrorists out of our borders' can be used.  After 2001, when national pride hit an all time high in the U.S. citizens may have willingly agreed to the surveillance by the NSA.  It's a matter of 'Well, I don't have anything to hide, and if you don't then why should you care if the NSA wants to look for terrorists and stop another 9/11 from happening?'  On that front, a sense of national security is ensured, though its undecided how accurate the NSA surveillance really is at catching the bad guys.

Here's what's bad: The government is spying on it's citizens! I think this statement can evoke enough of a bad taste in your mouth that I need not continue with my explanation.  Since when is the land of the free (freedom of EVERYTHING) home to a government that spies on its citizens 24/7 and can use that private information to incriminate them?
The NSA supposedly trashes most of the information is it doesn't seem useful, however, if there is evidence that a crime is about to occur, the agency can turn that information over to law enforcement and the citizen can be incriminated.  A citizen can be incriminated by information sent through a text message, said over a phone call to his brother, or emailed his cousin.  Think about that.  The privacy of citizens in the United States has disappeared.  And after a surveillance program this extensive has been in place for several years already, its highly unlikely the program and spying will ever stop.

So our privacy is gone forever.  Personally I have not been in favor the the NSA surveillance program since I first heard about it.  I am all for the rally syndrome and evoking national pride, but my feelings stop the second I know the government has infringed on my rights.  No, I do not have anything to hide, but as a U.S. citizen I shouldn't have to prove my innocence by letting the government 'listen in on my life.'   I am innocent until proven guilty - the right way.


Drone Warfare:

The United States has been moving it's military campaigns steadily into unmanned warfare since the drones were first used in 1995.
While drones offer the U.S. military an easier and arguably safer way to fight it's enemies, there are many controversies surrounding their use.

Pros:
Drones offer a tactful way to fight enemies without losing human lives in battle.  In the United States' War on Terrorism, the enemy isn't completely defined.  The U.S. isn't fighting against a recognized country who has an established military.  Instead, the U.S. is fighting an idea. Terrorists organizations are loosely held together.  They are not organized in the traditional sense of the word, and so the campaign against them must not be either.  The military can successfully strike at its enemies without losing a single American life in the fight.
Drones are cheaper.  The military spends millions of dollars training soldiers for the highest level of air force skill.  However, when a pilot gets shot down, all that money and training disappears with the life.
When a drone is shot down, the only thing lost is the machine (which is still thousands -maybe millions of dollars cheaper than an airplane).

Cons:
Has war become dehumanized? With a simple push of a button by a pilot harbored safely miles away from the battle, hundreds of lives can be taken - civilian and terrorist lives alike.
In 2008, the United States' killed a U.S. citizen in a drone strike in the Middle East.  This is the fourth known occurance.  The incidents beg the question; does the U.S. government have the right to kill its own citizens (even if they are collaborating with terrorist organizations) by a drone strike without a fair trial?
When targeting terrorist organizations in mountainous regions, drone strikes offer the easiest route to taking out enemy camps.  However, the enemy camps have caught on, and have begun bringing along innocent women and children.  Thus, innocent civilians are the collateral damage in a drone strike.

On a personal level, I feel torn.  I feel the common overwhelming sense of American Pride, and will support the military wherever they are sent.  However, there are times where I do not support those who are in control of the military.  Above all, the loss of an innocent human life is not acceptable collateral damage.  If there is any chance at all that an innocent life could be taken in a drone strike, I must admit that I am not in favor of the strike.  However, I acknowledge how drastically that would slow the war effort down, and may not be truly possible.
If it were me pushing the button, I wouldn't be able to do it. I guess I'm just glad that decision is in someone else's hands.