Negative - Drone Ban

Negative: Drone Bans DAlto/Wheeler Independent: 2012-2013
Kerstell/Kerstell: Neg
Openers:.......................................................................................................................................................4
INHERENCY..............................................................................................................................................6
Drones explained.....................................................................................................................................6
Drone synonyms..................................................................................................................................6
NATO Definition.................................................................................................................................6
U.N. set to look into drone use................................................................................................................6
HARMS/SIGNIFICANCE..........................................................................................................................7
International Law exists concerning drone use.......................................................................................7
Drones are already considered in violation of UN Law......................................................................7
Doesnt operate in legal vacuum.........................................................................................................7
Current Rules are adequate..................................................................................................................7
Drone use in Pakistan already considered against the Law.................................................................8
Nothing legally unique about drones...................................................................................................8
Rule of Law Turn: Less collateral Damage.............................................................................................9
Drones lead to more proportionate use of force..................................................................................9
War will have casualties, but drones less so........................................................................................9
Drones are more efficient than alternatives.........................................................................................9
Drones are ethically obligatory, since they have less collateral damage...........................................10
Drones kill fewer civilians.................................................................................................................10
Drones help prevent disproportionate use of force............................................................................10
Improving Effectiveness........................................................................................................................11
Civilian deaths declining....................................................................................................................11
Drop in civilian casualties..................................................................................................................11
Pakistan: Civilian deaths almost at zero............................................................................................12
Improving techniques........................................................................................................................12
SOLVENCY..............................................................................................................................................13
No definition of Warzone.......................................................................................................................13
Some view only Afghanistan as appropriate.....................................................................................13
Afghanistan only?..............................................................................................................................13
No Compliance......................................................................................................................................14
Countries will protect themselves no matter what.............................................................................14
Regardless of legal criticisms, Drone use will continue....................................................................14
Page 1 of 21
No nation would accept terms dictating where they can use force....................................................14
DISADVANTAGES..................................................................................................................................15
1. Surveillance lost..............................................................................................................................15
UAVs used for intelligence gathering...............................................................................................15
Drones give us data in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen................................................................15
Drones are ideal for surveillance.......................................................................................................15
NATO/ UN hindered..............................................................................................................................16
NATO uses drones.............................................................................................................................16
United Nations set to start using drones............................................................................................16
UN wants to use drones in Congo.....................................................................................................16
National Security...................................................................................................................................17
Drones are weapon of choice against Terrorists................................................................................17
Unmanned systems are set to play a larger role in U.S. military.......................................................17
Most effective counterterrorism technique........................................................................................17
Cost Effectiveness Lost.........................................................................................................................18
A2: Pakistan...........................................................................................................................................19
Pakistan lets U.S. use drone strikes...................................................................................................19
CIA goes to great lengths to ensure theyre targeting al Qaeda.........................................................19
Logic justifies no force in Pakistan/Yemen at all!.............................................................................19
Page 2 of 21
Strategy Notes
Inherency:
The United Nations is about to start looking into the legality/effectiveness of drone use around the
world.
Significance:
1. Current international law is good enough to ban drone use. This can double as solvency to point
out that if the current laws dont work, adding another law wont either
2. Drones are actually more effective at preventing civilian damage, because they allow countries to
have more information before striking.
3. Drone use is improving, so we dont need to ban them based on how many civilians died in the
past.
Solvency:
1. You dont really need to read the evidence, they just are there to show the judge that we need a
proper definition or else wed have to look at the worst case scenario which is that we would
ONLY be able to use drones in places like Afghanistan. Make sure you ask them to define War
Zones in Cx.
2. National security works like this: Countries will do what is in their best interest regardless of
international law. Thus passing another law wont stop the use of drones.
Disadvantages:
No explanation needed, enjoy your 2nc!
Pakistan:
Just a few pieces of evidence you could use to negate the claim that we shouldnt be using drones in
Pakistan
Page 3 of 21
Cross Examination Questions:
Could you provide us with a list of everything that is considered to be a drone?
Could you provide us a list of where countries would be allowed to use drones after your plan is passed?
What is the definition of a War Zone?

Does every country agree to that definition?
Y/N: Are there laws in place to deal with drone use?
What countries possess the ability to use drones?

What country uses them the most?
Why do countries choose to use drones?

So you prevent countries from deciding whats in their own national interest?
What is the main way the United States deals with terrorism?
If not drones, what will the United States use to kill al Qaeda Members in places like Iraq, Pakistan, and
Yemen?
Specifically, how many civilians are being killed in collateral damage by drone use?
Is that number increasing or decreasing?
Who controls drones?

Is it safe to assume the people controlling them dont actually have to be on the battlefield?
So the controllers could technically be outside the warzone?
Page 4 of 21
Opener:
Petra Ochmannov (Mgr Petra Ochmannova graduated from the Charles University Faculty of Law, Prague At the same
faculty is PhD candidate in Public International Law She is a member of the International Society for Military
Law & the Law of War. She works as a legal advisor at International Law Department, Ministry of Defence of the Czech
Republic. She specializes on international humanitarian law, privatisation of war & issues of use of force) Czech Yearbook of
Public & Private International Law, "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles And Law Of Armed Conflict Implications" 2011
http://www.cyil.eu/contents-cyil-2011/
As often is mentioned that all predictions agree that if man does not master technology, but allows it to master him instead,
he will be destroyed by the technology, one must acknowledge the realities of current battlefields and new developments
whether he likes it or not. From looking on reality of todays battlefield (especially in Afghanistan), it is
evident that the use UAVs is a very contributive and multifunctional mean of combat. The emphasize placed
on development of new technologies, for example like highly autonomous systems (whether aerial or ground) is so manifest
that in near future outcomes of such direction will with no doubt represent a real revolution in conducting warfare.
Revolution, which will most probably represent a substantial modification in character of waging war and maybe even
resulting in change of employing military strategy.
Page 5 of 21
INHERENCY
Drones explained
Drone synonyms
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or predators or drones, these all represent just different
denominations of aircraft machine without a pilot actually sitting in the cockpit and directing it.
Notwithstanding of usual simplification used in media, an abbreviation UAVs will be used for the general denomination of
unmanned aircrafts for the purpose of this article.
NATO Definition
NATO defines UAVs as: a powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses
aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be
expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload. Ballistic or semiballistic
vehicles, cruise missiles, and artillery projectiles are not considered unmanned aerial vehicles".
U.N. set to look into drone use

Colum Lynch (Colum Lynch has been been reporting on foreign policy & national security for the Washington Post since
June 1999 As the Post's United Nations reporter, Lynch has been involved in the paper's diplomatic coverage of a broad
range of crises, including conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, & Somalia, & the nuclear standoffs with Iran &
North Korea)The Washington Post, "U.N. to probe drone attacks by U.S., others resulting in civilian deaths" October 25,
2012 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-25/world/35502503_1_drone-attacks-drone-program-covert-strikes
An independent U.N. human rights researcher on Thursday announced plans to launch an investigation
into the use of drone attacks and other targeted assassinations by the United States and other
governments that result in civilian deaths or injuries. Ben Emmerson, the U.N. special rapporteur on
counterterrorism and human rights, said in a Harvard University law school speech that he and South African Christof Heyns,
the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, will establish an investigative unit early next
year in Geneva to probe drone attacks.
Page 6 of 21
HARMS/SIGNIFICANCE
International Law exists concerning drone use
Drones are already considered in violation of UN Law

Andrei Akulov (journalist, Retired Colonel in the Russian Ministry of Defense) Oriental Review (an independent Moscow-
based Internet journal focusing on current political issues in Eurasia & beyond The initiative is launched in February 2010
by a group of freelance bloggers & political analysts concerned with the aggravating security situation in the world) "UAVs:
Human and Legal Aspects" November 3, 2012
http://orientalreview.org/2012/11/03/uavs-human-and-legal-aspects/
Because there is little precedent for the classified US UAV program, international law doesnt speak directly to how it might
operate. What is obvious is that the drone warfare violates Article 51 of the U.N Charter that defines the
rules of selfdefense because the United States is not attacked. For instance, the operations in Pakistan run afoul
of international law which limits selfdefense against prospective threats to ones which are imminent. The signature tactics
are inherently in violation of the principle of distinction because it fails to identify civilian or militant. Drone attacks run
against the principle of proportionality concerning unintentional civilian casualties in war. They violate
Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
by disregarding the human rights of the innocent civilians killed in the strikes. Furthermore, the US UAV tactics
conflict with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary
killing even during an armed conflict. .
Doesnt operate in legal vacuum

Even though international law does not specifically introduce rules governing UAVs engagement, neither
does so about aerial warfare; it does not mean that it operates in a legal vacuum. When employing UAVs, its
operators, planners of its engagement and decisionmakers have to comply with the same set of rules
applicable to normally to piloted aircrafts or missile warfare.
Current Rules are adequate

Mary Ellen OConnell (holds the Robert & Marion Short Chair in Law & is Research Professor of International Dispute
ResolutionKroc Institute for Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Her research is in the areas of international
legal theory, international law on the use of force, & international dispute resolution. Cambridge University, Cambridge,
England LL.B. (1982) International Law) American Society of International Law (Volume 14, Issue 37) "The
International Law of Drones" November 12, 2010
http://www.asil.org/files/2010/insights/insights_101112.pdf
Commentators continue to debate whether drone technology represents the next revolution in military
affairs. Regardless of the answer to that question, drones have not created a revolution in legal affairs.
The current rules governing battlefield launch vehicles are adequate for regulating resort to drones.
Page 7 of 21
Drone use in Pakistan already considered against the Law

Andrew C. Orr (JD Cornell Law School; Associate at Kirkland & Ellis LLP) Cornell International Law Journal (Vol.
44)"Unmanned, Unprecedented, and Unresolved: The Status of American Drone Strikes in Pakistan Under International
Law" 2011 http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/ILJ/upload/Orr-final.pdf
Scholars have raised a number of arguments for the illegality of American drone strikes in Pakistan.
First, terrorism is a law enforcement issue rather than a military matter. Second, drone attacks violate the territorial
sovereignty of Pakistan, a nation that is not involved in an armed conflict with the United States. Moreover, the attacks
do not meet the requirements for self-defense under the United Nations Charter (Charter) as interpreted
by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and customary international law. Similarly, the drone attacks violate
the jus ad bellum requirements of necessity and proportionality, to which a States initial use of force must conform. Under
the Charter, acts of violence carried out by non-state actors such as al Qaeda cannot constitute armed attack[s] triggering a
States right of self-defense, and hostilities between the United States and al Qaeda do not rise to the level of an armed
conflict.
Nothing legally unique about drones

Prof. Michael W. Lewis (Associate Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University Claude W. Pettit College of
Law;Professor Lewis joined the Ohio Northern faculty in August, 2006. Lewis flew F-14's for the United States Navy in
Operation Desert Shield, conducted strike planning for Desert Storm & was deployed to the Persian Gulf to enforce the no-
fly zone over Iraq.J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School) The Texas International Law Journal (Volume 47, Issue
2) "Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield" June 2, 2012 [Brackets added]
http://www.tilj.org/content/journal/47/num2/Lewis293.pdf
The [Air and Missile Warfare] AMW Manual generally treats drones in the same way as manned aircraft. It equates
[Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles] UCAVs with other military aircraft for the purposes of conducting attacks and requires
that the same level of precautions be taken before initiating an attack with UCAVs as would be required when employing
manned aircraft. It also states that civilians controlling drones are directly participating in hostilities, giving them the same
status that civilians would have if they were to fly a military aircraft. This l egal equivalence between manned and
unmanned aircraft is broadly accepted by commentators. In spite of the Terminator-like creepiness
associated with machines seemingly making war on human beings, there is nothing legally unique about
using unmanned drones as a weapons delivery platform that requires the creation of new or different
laws to regulate their use. As with any other attack launched against enemy forces during an armed conflict, attacks
launched from UCAVs are governed by IHL and must meet its requirements of military necessity and proportionality if those
attacks are to be considered legal.
Page 8 of 21
Rule of Law Turn: Less collateral Damage

Drones lead to more proportionate use of force
Prof. Michael W. Lewis (Associate Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University Claude W. Pettit College of Law;Professor
Lewis joined the Ohio Northern faculty in August, 2006. Lewis flew F-14's for the United States Navy in Operation Desert
Shield, conducted strike planning for Desert Storm & was deployed to the Persian Gulf to enforce the no-fly zone over
Iraq.J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School) The Texas International Law Journal (Volume 47, Issue 2) "Drones and
the Boundaries of the Battlefield" June 2, 2012
For manned aircraft both the target identification and the final proportionality decision are left in the hands of one or two
crew members whose attention is divided between flying the aircraft, looking for (and possibly evading) surface-to-air
missiles and ground fire, identifying the target, assessing the proportionality of the attack, and accurately delivering the
weapon. In contrast, the longer loiter time of drones allows for a much higher level of confidence that the
target has been properly identified, thereby meeting the military necessity requirement. Even more
critically, the drones sensors allow many sets of eyes, including those of JAG lawyers trained to assess
proportionality, to make a proportionality determination at the time of weapons release. Even if the drone is
evading fire at the time of weapons release, those making the final decision to carry out the attack are not dealing with the
decision-impairing effects of mortal fear. Although the sanitary environment of the drone control room has
been criticized for making war too much like a video game, it undoubtedly leads to much sounder
proportionality determinations.
War will have casualties, but drones less so

Rosa Brooks (As a Schwartz fellow at New America, Rosa Brooks studies & writes on the changing nature of warfare & changing role
of the US military; Ms Brooks has recently served as Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy & as Special Coordinator for
Rule of Law & Humanitarian Policy in the Pentagon; She is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center; Ms Brooks spent four
years as an opinion columnist for The Los Angeles Times & has been a frequent guest on MSNBC & Blogging heads TV; Brooks received a
BA from Harvard, an MA from Oxford, & a JD from Yale Law School) New America Foundation, "What's Not Wrong With
Drones? The wildly overblown case against remote-controlled war." September 6, 2012
http://newamerica.net/publications/articles/2012/whats_not_wrong_with_drones_71003
Let's review the case against the drones. 1. Drone strikes kill innocent civilians. This is undoubtedly
true, but it's not an argument against drone strikes as such. War kills innocent civilians, period. But some
means and methods of warfare tend to cause more unintended civilian deaths than others.
Drones are more efficient than alternatives

Rosa Brooks (As a Schwartz fellow at New America, Rosa Brooks studies & writes on the changing nature of warfare & changing role
of the US military; Ms Brooks has recently served as Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy & as Special Coordinator for
Rule of Law & Humanitarian Policy in the Pentagon; She is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center; Ms Brooks spent four
years as an opinion columnist for The Los Angeles Times & has been a frequent guest on MSNBC & Blogging heads TV; Brooks received a
BA from Harvard, an MA from Oxford, & a JD from Yale Law School) New America Foundation, "What's Not Wrong With
Drones? The wildly overblown case against remote-controlled war." September 6, 2012
To paraphrase the NRA, "Drones don't kill people, people kill people." At any rate, drone strikes kill
civilians at no higher a rate, and almost certainly at a lower rate, than most other common means of
warfare. Drones actually permit far greater precision in targeting. Today's unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can
carry small bombs that do less widespread damage, and there's no human pilot whose fatigue might limit flight time. Their
low profile and relative fuel efficiency combines with this to permit them to spend more "time on target" than any manned
aircraft.
Page 9 of 21
Drones are ethically obligatory, since they have less collateral damage
Scott Shane (Scott Shane is a reporter in the Washington bureau of The New York Times, where he writes about national
security & a range of other subjects) New York Times, "The Moral Case for Drones" July 14, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-moral-case-for-drones.html?_r=0
I had ethical doubts and concerns when I started looking into this, said Bradley J. Strawser, a former
Air Force officer and an assistant professor of philosophy at the Naval Postgraduate School. But after a
concentrated study of remotely piloted vehicles, he said, he concluded that using them to go after
terrorists not only was ethically permissible but also might be ethically obligatory, because of their
advantages in identifying targets and striking with precision. You have to start by asking, as for any military
action, is the cause just? Mr. Strawser said. But for extremists who are indeed plotting violence against innocents, he said,
all the evidence we have so far suggests that drones do better at both identifying the terrorist and
avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have.
Drones kill fewer civilians

Moreover, any analysis of actual results from the Central Intelligence Agencys strikes in Pakistan, which has become the
worlds unwilling test ground for the new weapon, is hampered by secrecy and wildly varying casualty reports. But one
rough comparison has found that even if the highest estimates of collateral deaths are accurate, the
drones kill fewer civilians than other modes of warfare.
Drones help prevent disproportionate use of force

Prof. Michael W. Lewis (Associate Professor of Law, Ohio Northern University Claude W. Pettit College of Law;Professor
Lewis joined the Ohio Northern faculty in August, 2006. Lewis flew F-14's for the United States Navy in Operation Desert
Shield, conducted strike planning for Desert Storm & was deployed to the Persian Gulf to enforce the no-fly zone over
Iraq.J.D., cum laude, Harvard Law School) The Texas International Law Journal (Volume 47, Issue 2) "Drones and
the Boundaries of the Battlefield" June 2, 2012 [Brackets added]
Another operational advantage that drones provide is greater legal compliance with [International Humanitarian Law] IHLs
requirements of military necessity and proportionality. Although many of the early criticisms of drones were directed at their
allegedly indiscriminate nature, which purportedly resulted in disproportionate civilian casualties, the reality of drone strikes
is that they provide many more opportunities for disproportionate attacks to be halted prior to weapons employment.
Page 10 of 21
Improving Effectiveness
Civilian deaths declining

Rosa Brooks (As a Schwartz fellow at New America, Rosa Brooks studies & writes on the changing nature of warfare &
changing role of the US military; Ms Brooks has recently served as Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
& as Special Coordinator for Rule of Law & Humanitarian Policy in the Pentagon; She is a professor at Georgetown
University Law Center; Ms Brooks spent four years as an opinion columnist for The Los Angeles Times & has been a
frequent guest on MSNBC & Blogging heads TV; Brooks received a BA from Harvard, an MA from Oxford, & a JD from
Yale Law School) New America Foundation, "What's Not Wrong With Drones? The wildly overblown case against
remote-controlled war." September 6, 2012
Compared to the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, drone strikes look pretty good. Compared to world
peace, not so much. The most meaningful point of comparison is probably manned aircraft. It's difficult to get solid numbers
here, but one analysis published in the Small Wars Journal suggested that in 2007 the ratio of civilian deaths due to coalition
air attacks in Afghanistan may have been as high as 15 to 1. More recent UN figures suggest a far lower rate, with as few as
one civilian killed for every ten airstrikes in Afghanistan. But drone strikes have also gotten far less lethal for
civilians in the last few years: the New America Foundation concludes that only three to nine civilians
were killed during 72 U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan in 2011, and the 2012 number -- so far -- is zero
civilians killed in 36 strikes. In part, this is due to technological advances over the last decade, but it's
also due to far more stringent rules for when drones can release weapons.
Drop in civilian casualties

By the count of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, which has done perhaps the most
detailed and skeptical study of the strikes, the C.I.A. operators are improving their performance. The
bureau has documented a notable drop in the civilian proportion of drone casualties, to 16 percent of
those killed in 2011 from 28 percent in 2008. This year, by the bureaus count, just three of the 152
people killed in drone strikes through July 7 were civilians.
Page 11 of 21
Pakistan: Civilian deaths almost at zero

Peter Bergen (a British-American print & broadcast journalist, author, & CNN's national security analyst; Bergen is also
the director of the National Security Studies Program at the New America Foundation) Jennifer Rowland (a program
associate with the National Security Studies Program at the New America Foundation) "Civilian casualties plummet in drone
strikes" July 14, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/index.html
The New America Foundation has been collecting data about the drone attacks systematically for the past three years from
reputable news sources such as the New York Times and Reuters, as well as Pakistani media outlets such as the Express
Tribune and Dawn. According to the data generated by averaging the high and low casualty estimates of militant and
civilian deaths published in a wide range of those outlets, the estimated civilian death rate in U.S. drone strikes in
Pakistan has declined dramatically since 2008, when it was at its peak of almost 50%. Today, for the first
time, the estimated civilian death rate is at or close to zero.
Improving techniques
Peter Bergen (a British-American print & broadcast journalist, author, & CNN's national security analyst; Bergen is also
the director of the National Security Studies Program at the New America Foundation) Jennifer Rowland (a program
associate with the National Security Studies Program at the New America Foundation) "Civilian casualties plummet in drone
strikes" July 14, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/index.html
The drop in the number of civilian casualties since 2008 came as a result of several developments, one
of which was a directive issued from the White House just days after President Obama took office, to
tighten up the way the CIA selected targets and carried out strikes. Specifically, Obama wanted to evaluate and
sign off personally on any strike if the agency did not have a "near certainty" that it would result in zero civilian casualties.
The CIA began utilizing smaller munitions for more pinpoint strikes. And drones can now linger for longer periods of time
over targets, ascertaining whether civilians are around the target area, than was the case several years ago.
Page 12 of 21
SOLVENCY
No definition of Warzone
Some view only Afghanistan as appropriate

Tom Roberts (Senior Editor at the National Catholic Reporter) The National Catholic Reporter, "Drone technology
raises questions on evolving nature of war and its conduct" November 5, 2012
http://ncronline.org/node/38501
Whether drones may be an efficient tool of war is beside the point for Mary Ellen O'Connell, a
University of Notre Dame Law School professor and an ardent critic of the use of drones outside of established
conflict zones. Concern is growing, she said in a Sept. 28 phone interview, because what we're seeing the U.S. doing
carrying out military attacks in other countries that have not attacked the United States, countries that are not at war with the
United Statesis a huge departure from U.S. practice and from any international practice. The only battlefield where
the U.S. has the legal and moral right to use drones to carry out killing, she said, is in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan only?
2) "Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield" June 2, 2012 [Brackets added]
the debate about what constitutes the legal boundaries of the battlefield has a particularly
As a result,
significant impact on the use and development of drones. Because their operational limitations prevent drones
from being employed outside of the permissive environments found in counterterrorism or counterinsurgency operations,
their usefulness as a weapons system is strongly tied to the scope of IHLs application. If the strict geographic approach
to defining [International Humanitarian Laws] IHLs scope (described in more detail below) is accepted, then
drone use would be considered illegal everywhere outside Afghanistan.
Page 13 of 21
No Compliance
Countries will protect themselves no matter what

Perhaps, by doing what it deems necessary to protect its security interests, the United States, for better or worse, will alter
norms, and customary international law will change. It seems likely, however, that the United States, and
other countries that are the primary targets of terrorist organizations, will continue to conduct activities
like the drone strikes in Pakistan to address terrorist threats no matter what. To those who envision a
world in which countries feel bound by international law the same way individuals feel bound by
domestic law, this is a hard conclusion to stomach. But international law regarding the use of force against
terrorists can also conform to reality, rather than the other way around. A framework that accommodates the security needs of
countries targeted by terrorism would promote the legitimacy of international law by reducing the instances in which
countries are forced to choose between their own security needs and compliance with international norms. In the meantime,
States need to defend themselves, and will almost certainly continue to do so.
Regardless of legal criticisms, Drone use will continue

2) "Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield" June 2, 2012
The military use of drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) in
combat operations is one of the more legally controversial issues confronting international humanitarian
law (IHL) as we move into the second decade of the twentyfirst century. The legality of drones has been
questioned for a variety of reasons, some more grounded in fact than others, but in spite of these criticisms there is
little question that the use of drones in surveillance and combat roles is on the rise. The next decade will
undoubtedly see their continued use by an increasingly large number of nations, particularly in
counterinsurgency operations.
No nation would accept terms dictating where they can use force
The claim that there are legal restrictions on the employment of combat force during an international
armed conflict based solely upon the distance from the front lines finds no support in practice. This is
because no nation in the world would ever accept such blanket limitations upon its militarys ability to
act. Success in warfare at any level, from single combat to global military strategy, is based upon the ability to strike your
opponent in places where he is vulnerable and in ways he does not expect. The history of warfare since the adoption of the
Geneva Conventions is replete with examples of combat force being employed far from the front lines..
Page 14 of 21
DISADVANTAGES
1. Surveillance lost
UAVs used for intelligence gathering

UAVs were traditionally used for surveillance, reconnaissance, search and intelligence gathering
purposes. As they provided its operators with a significant informational supremacy, they often were
used in support of aerial and ground attack in area of military operations. Nowadays, thanks to technological
advance consisting in capability to carry on a lethal force comparable to light aircraft equipment operated by a pilot, UAVs
represent not only flexible and cheap instrument providing number of intelligence data, but a multifunction and efficient
means of combat, as such.
Drones give us data in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen

Peter Finn (a National Security correspondent for The Washington Post He joined the paper from the Fort Worth Star-
Telegram in 1995 & first worked in Virginia for the Metro section Beginning in 1998, Finn spent 10 years overseas for the
paper as the bureau chief in Warsaw, Berlin & then Moscow) The Washington Post, "A future for drones: Automated
killing" September 19, 2011
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-09-19/national/35273383_1_drones-human-target-military-base
Drones flying over Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen can already move automatically from point to
point, and it is unclear what surveillance or other tasks, if any, they perform while in autonomous mode.
Even when directly linked to human operators, these machines are producing so much data that processors are
sifting the material to suggest targets, or at least objects of interest. That trend toward greater autonomy will
only increase as the U.S. military shifts from one pilot remotely flying a drone to one pilot remotely managing several drones
at once.
Drones are ideal for surveillance

Operationally, drones provide a couple of significant advantages over manned aircraft that make them
particularly valuable in certain types of modern armed conflicts. Their biggest advantage is their very
long endurance: over thirtyhours for the Predator B and twenty hours for the Predator C (Avenger).This gives drones more than ten
times the endurance of unrefueled manned aircraft, enabling them to observe and track a target for many hours at a time before deciding
whether to employ ordnance. For manned aircraft to achieve the same loiter time extensive airborne refueling support would be required.
To achieve the same unbroken surveillance of a potential target offered by a single drone, multiple
manned aircraft would be needed to avoid losing track of the target when the aircraft left its station to
refuel. This makes drones an ideal surveillance and striking weapon in counterinsurgency or
counterterrorism operations, where the targets are usually individuals rather than objects.
Page 15 of 21
2. NATO/ UN hindered
NATO uses drones
8 insurgents killed in NorthWest Pakistan as a result of US unmanned aerial vehicle.; 2 Brits killed
on Sundays UAV air strike in NorthWest Pakistan. ; 4 to 6 radicals have been killed on Fridays
UAV air strike conducted in tribal territory of NorthWest Pakistan. Number of similar reports
occupied last year international news as NATO allied offensive operation Moshtarak culminated in
Afghanistan, while massive engagement of allied troops and technique has been employed to suppress
insurgents.
United Nations set to start using drones

Colum Lynch (Colum Lynch has been been reporting on foreign policy & national security for the Washington Post since
June 1999 As the Post's United Nations reporter, Lynch has been involved in the paper's diplomatic coverage of a broad
range of crises, including conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, & Somalia, & the nuclear standoffs with Iran &
North Korea)The Washington Post, " U.N. wants to use drones for peacekeeping missions" January 08, 2013
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-25/world/35502503_1_drone-attacks-drone-program-covert-strikes
The United Nations, looking to modernize its peacekeeping operations, is planning for the first time to
deploy a fleet of its own surveillance drones in missions in Central and West Africa. The U.N. Department of
Peacekeeping has notified Congo, Rwanda and Uganda that it intends to deploy a unit of at least three unarmed surveillance
drones in the eastern region of Congo. The action is the first step in a broader bid to integrate unmanned aerial
surveillance systems, which have become a standard feature of Western military operations, into the
United Nations farflung peacekeeping empire.
UN wants to use drones in Congo

Professor Greg McNeal (J.D., Case Western Reserve University; Professor McNeal is a national security specialist
focusing on the institutions & challenges associated with global security, with substantive expertise in national security law
& policy, criminal law, & international law. He previously served as Assistant Director of the Institute for Global Security,
co-directed a transnational counterterrorism program for the U.S. Department of Justice, & served as an advisor to the Chief
Prosecutor of the Department of Defense Office of Military Commissions on matters related to the prosecution of suspected
terrorists held in the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay) Forbes Magazine, "United Nations Wants To Use Drones In
Africa, Could Legally Be Armed" November 24, 2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/11/24/united-nations-wants-to-use-drones-in-africa/
The United Nations wants to use drones to enhance the capabilities of peacekeepers monitoring the
movement of armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). According to a report by AFP, the
sensitive move, could set a precedent that would worry some United Nations members. While the proposed use of
drones is for surveillance purposes only, the Security Council resolution authorizing UN operations in
the DRC could allow for the drones to be armed and would authorize the use of force if necessary to
protect individuals from an imminent threat of violence.
Page 16 of 21
3. National Security
Drones are weapon of choice against Terrorists
In the war against al Qaeda and other terrorists, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) have increasingly
become the United States weapon of choice. In addition to the publicly acknowledged military drone programs in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the CIA4 uses drones to target militants in the mountainous Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA)
of Pakistan along the Afghanistan border. Initiated during the second Bush administration, the CIAs drone program in
Pakistan has expanded considerably since President Obama took office, and 2010 saw more than twice as many drone strikes
on Pakistani soil as 2009. The Pakistani government has publicly denounced the attacks, but its intelligence service is
cooperating with the CIA, and has even selected some of the targets. Drones have an obvious appeal in the United
States national security community because they are effective, while posing minimal threats to American
military personnel.
Unmanned systems are set to play a larger role in U.S. military

Major Jeffrey Thurnher (a Member of the Judge Advocate Generals Corps & is serving on the Faculty in the
International Law Department at the US Naval War College) Joint Force Quarterly (JFQ is the Chairman's joint
military & security studies journal designed to inform & educate national security professionals on joint & integrated
operations; whole of government contributions to national security policy & strategy) "No One at the Controls: Legal
Implications of Fully Autonomous Targeting" October 2012
http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/jfq-67/JFQ-67_77-84_Thurnher.pdf
Robots and unmanned systems have proven incredibly valuable on the battlefield during the war on
terror and are likely to play a larger and more sophisticated role for militaries in the future. From 2000
2010, the number of U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) proliferated from fewer than 50 to over 7,000, with similarly
astounding increases among land and seabased unmanned systems. Despite overall reductions in upcoming U.S.
defense budgets, expenditures for unmanned systems are projected to grow. All branches of the U.S.
military are poised to rely more heavily on unmanned systems in the future.
Most effective counterterrorism technique

Clinton Watts (a Senior Fellow with the HSPI He is the Principal Consultant of PA Consulting Group, a Former Special
Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, & a Former Executive Officer of the Combatting Terrorism Center at West
Point )and Frank J. Cilluffo (Director, Homeland Security Policy Institute; prior to joining HSPI, Frank served as Special
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security at the White House) Homeland Security Policy Institute, "DRONES
IN YEMEN: IS THE U.S. ON TARGET? " June 21, 2012 [Brackets added]
http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/policy/drones.pdf
Critics of the U.S. drone campaign in Yemen confusingly lump together disparate issues related to
terminology, intelligence processes, legal authorities and terrorist propaganda to justify stopping the use of the U.S.s
most effective counterterrorism technique all while failing to offer a viable alternative for countering [al Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsulas] AQAPs immediate threat to the U.S. Although an imperfect tool, drone strikes suppress
terrorists in otherwise denied safe havens and limit jihadists ability to organize, plan and carry out
attacks. These strikes help shield us from harm and serve our national interests. Doing nothing is simply
not an option.
Page 17 of 21
4. Cost Effectiveness Lost

The driving force behind the western militaries development of drone technology was to minimize the number of human
lives placed at risk to collect intelligence and to deliver small amounts of ordnance with some degree of precision. However,
it is the relatively low cost of drones compared to that of modern combat aircraft that will drive the
proliferation of drones over the next decade. More basic drones cost less than 1/20th as much as the
latest combat aircraft and even the more advanced drones that feature jet propulsion and employ some stealth
technology are less than 1/10th the cost. With defense budgets around the world under increasing
pressure, drones will be seen as an attractive alternative to manned aircraft for certain types of
missions.
Page 18 of 21
A2: Pakistan
Pakistan lets U.S. use drone strikes

The United States is not engaged in an armed conflict with Pakistan, and has Pakistans permission to
conduct drone attacks within its borders. While the Pakistani intelligence and military services have not
always cooperated with the United States efforts to capture or kill al Qaeda members, Pakistani leaders
now have a say in targeting decisions.
CIA goes to great lengths to ensure theyre targeting al Qaeda

Despite CIA secrecy and Pakistans prohibition on foreign journalists, much is known about the
program. The CIA makes targeting decisions based on intelligence from local informants, and the
President approves at least some of the individual strikes. While the informants are not always reliable,
the CIA goes to great lengths to confirm its information and to ensure that the strikes specifically target
al Qaeda fighters
Logic justifies no force in Pakistan/Yemen at all!

While drones have been criticized for causing a disproportionate number of civilian casualties or for merely sending the
wrong message about American power, the most serious legal challenges to the use of drones in the modern combat
environment involve questions of where such unmanned aircraft may be legally employed. It is contended that drone
strikes in places like Yemen and Pakistan violate international law because there is currently no armed
conflict occurring in these nations. Although theoretically the limitations imposed by this view of the
boundaries of the battlefield are not specifically directed at the use of drones and apply with equal force
to any use of the tools of armed conflict, from a practical standpoint the view that the boundaries of the battlefield are
strictly defined by geopolitical lines has a particularly significant impact on the use of drones.
Page 19 of 21
A2: 2% hit rate
Fabricated eevidence
Christine Fair (an assistant professor at Georgetown Universitys Security Studies Program. Previously, she
served as a Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation, a political officer to the United Nations Assistance Mission
to Afghanistan in Kabul, & as a senior research associate with the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), Center for
Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Ph.D. in South Asian Languages & Civilizations) "Drones Over Pakistan -- Menace or Best
Viable Option?" August 2, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/c-christine-fair/drones-over-pakistan----m_b_666721.html
As I have argued elsewhere, Kilcullen and Exum employed data which Pakistani analysts outright debunk as
fabricated to buttress their claim that in the past three years drones assassinated only 14 terrorist
leaders compared to 700 civilian lives. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, resulting in a hit
rate of 2 percent.
Most Drone hit region: people view drones as good

Farhat Taj (a PhD Research Fellow, University of Oslo & a newspaper columnist in Pakistan) Pakistan Daily
Times, "Drone attacks: challnging some fabrications" January 2, 2010 [Waziristan is a mountainous region in north
Pakistan]
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C01%5C02%5Cstory_2-1-2010_pg3_5
There is a deep abyss between the perceptions of the people of Waziristan, the most dronehit area and the wider Pakistani
society on the other side of the River Indus. For the latter, the US drone attacks on Waziristan are a violation of Pakistanis
sovereignty. Politicians, religious leaders, media analysts and anchorpersons express sensational clamour
over the supposed civilian casualties in the drone attacks. I have been discussing the issue of drone
attacks with hundreds of people of Waziristan. They see the US drone attacks as their liberators from the
clutches of the terrorists into which, they say, their state has wilfully thrown them.
Pakistanis not concerned about drones

Farhat Taj (a PhD Research Fellow, University of Oslo & a newspaper columnist in Pakistan) Pakistan Daily
Times, "Drone attacks: challnging some fabrications" January 2, 2010
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C01%5C02%5Cstory_2-1-2010_pg3_5
I have heard people particularly appreciating the precision of drone strikes. People say that when a
drone would hover over the skies, they wouldnt be disturbed and would carry on their usual business
because they would be sure that it does not target the civilians, but the same people would run for shelter
when a Pakistani jet would appear in the skies because of its indiscriminate firing. They say that even in the same
compound only the exact room where a high value target (HVT) is present is targeted. Thus others in the same
compound are spared.
Page 20 of 21
Major civilian causalties claim: bogus

Christine Fair (an assistant professor at Georgetown Universitys Security Studies Program. Previously, she
served as a Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation, a political officer to the United Nations Assistance Mission
to Afghanistan in Kabul, & as a senior research associate with the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), Center for
Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Ph.D. in South Asian Languages & Civilizations) Drone Wars May 28, 2010
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/05/28/drone_wars
The anti-drone argument goes like this: Because drone attacks kill innocent civilians and violate
Pakistan's sovereignty, they are deeply and universally despised by Pakistanis, and contribute to
deepening anti-U.S. sentiment in the country -- enmity that could boost terrorist organizations' recruitment and
eventually force Pakistan's military and civilian leaders to abandon their cooperation with the United States.
During his testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May 2009, David Kilcullen, a former
counterinsurgency advisor to Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, said it was time for the United States to "call off the
drones." Later that month, Kilcullen and Andrew M. Exum, who served as an Army Ranger in Iraq and Afghanistan from
2002 to 2004, published a provocative editorial in the New York Times, titled "Death From Above: Outrage from Below," in
which they estimated that over the "past three years" drones had killed just 14 "terrorist leaders" at the price of some 700
civilian lives. "This is 50 civilians for every militant killed," they wrote, "a hit rate of 2 percent." Their conclusion? Drone
strikes produce more terrorists than they eliminate-an assertion that has become an article of faith among drone-strike
opponents.
It would be a damning argument -- if the data weren't simply bogus. The only publicly available
civilian casualty figures for drone strikes in Pakistan come from their targets: the Pakistani Taliban,
which report the alleged numbers to the Pakistani press, which dutifully publishes the fiction. No one has
independently verified the Taliban's reports -- journalists cannot travel to FATA to confirm the deaths, and the CIA will not
even acknowledge the drone program exists, much less discuss its results. But high-level Pakistani officials have conceded to
me that very few civilians have been killed by drones and their innocence is often debatable. U.S. officials who are
knowledgeable of the program report similar findings. In fact, since January 1 there has not been one confirmed civilian
casualty from drone strikes in FATA.
Page 21 of 21

Negative - Drone Ban

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Negative - Drone Ban

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Negative: Drone Bans DAlto/Wheeler Independent: 2012-2013

No explanation needed, enjoy your 2nc!

Cross Examination Questions:

Could you provide us with a list of everything that is considered to be a drone?

What is the definition of a War Zone?

Y/N: Are there laws in place to deal with drone use?

What countries possess the ability to use drones?

Why do countries choose to use drones?

Who controls drones?

U.N. set to look into drone use

International Law exists concerning drone use

Drones are already considered in violation of UN Law

Doesnt operate in legal vacuum

Current Rules are adequate

Drone use in Pakistan already considered against the Law

Nothing legally unique about drones

Rule of Law Turn: Less collateral Damage

War will have casualties, but drones less so

Drones are more efficient than alternatives

Drones kill fewer civilians

Drones help prevent disproportionate use of force

Civilian deaths declining

Drop in civilian casualties

Pakistan: Civilian deaths almost at zero

Some view only Afghanistan as appropriate

Countries will protect themselves no matter what

Regardless of legal criticisms, Drone use will continue

UAVs used for intelligence gathering

Drones give us data in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen

Drones are ideal for surveillance

United Nations set to start using drones

UN wants to use drones in Congo

Unmanned systems are set to play a larger role in U.S. military

Most effective counterterrorism technique

4. Cost Effectiveness Lost

Pakistan lets U.S. use drone strikes

CIA goes to great lengths to ensure theyre targeting al Qaeda

Logic justifies no force in Pakistan/Yemen at all!

A2: 2% hit rate

Most Drone hit region: people view drones as good

Pakistanis not concerned about drones

Major civilian causalties claim: bogus

You might also like