The secretary of state, John Kerry, spoke at his confirmation hearing of the need to make sure that “American foreign policy is not defined by drones and deployments alone.”

The administration says the use of drones has taken many enemy combatants off the battlefield and reduced civilian casualties.

Officials say they only target belligerents covered by the 2001 legislation, but the public has no way of knowing under what criteria these targets are chosen.

The White House has said it is still developing rules for when to kill terrorists.

 At a minimum, United States rules should specify that no one can be killed unless actively planning or participating in terror, or helping lead the Taliban in Pakistan or Al Qaeda. Killing should be authorized only when it can be demonstrated that capture is impossible. Standards for preventing the killing of innocents who might be nearby should be detailed and thorough.

More than 50 nations have or are trying to get the technology. The United States will set the standard for them all.

———————-

United States has relied increasingly on drones to kill people away from the battlefield.

America’s drones hit targets in countries with whom it is not formally at war, that there are no publicly understood rules for picking targets, and that the strikes may kill innocent civilians and harm, not help, American interests.

The claim seems to go against itself. The claims made state that the US has relied on drones to kill people away from the battlefield, however, later it is stated that the public does not know if the drones are harming instead of helping civilians. The public would want to know if the drones are helping or not, and knowing that the US relies on drones more and more, helps show why there is scrutiny against the drones. The public has no unsure answer, especially with how targets are picked and if the drones help. Although there is nothing to back up to show that the US does rely on drones, mentioning that public knowledge is limited, helps the author display why the public questions the drones.

At a minimum, United States rules should specify that no one can be killed unless actively planning or participating in terror, or helping lead the Taliban in Pakistan or Al Qaeda. Killing should be authorized only when it can be demonstrated that capture is impossible. Standards for preventing the killing of innocents who might be nearby should be detailed and thorough.

Strong agreement with this claim. The public wants to know more about the drone attacks, and who could be killed.  The author claims that killing should only be authorized when capture is impossible, and that the standards of preventing killing the innocent should be more detailed, while at a minimum having the US state specify that only those participating in “terror” could be killed. The claim is an accurate suggestion, because the public has many unanswered questions, which add to the drone scrutiny. People have fears of being prone to attacks, or believe that the drones may be misused. By suggesting that standards and specifications should be stated to classify who could be killed, the scrutiny may ease up. The author’s goal is to discuss the drone arguments, and by previously stating that the public is unsure about the use of the drones, giving a suggestion helps display a possible action that could be taken does a good job of stating what could be made better.