- Con to the question "Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?"
“We are in the midst of a significant period of drone proliferation, pushed forward on the one hand by governments and militaries, and on the other, by manufacturers seeking to expand markets and profit. Unchecked armed drone proliferation poses a threat to global stability, and, as more countries and non-state actors obtain access to the technology, the risk of US-style practices of cross-border targeted killing spreading are clear…
The ways in which the US has used drones in the context of its targeted killing policies has facilitated an undermining of the constraints of democratic accountability, and rendered resort to lethal force easier and more attractive to policymakers. The decision to use military force must be subject to rigorous checks-and-balances; drones, however, have facilitated the use of killing as a convenient option that avoids the potential political fallout from US casualties and the challenges posed by detention.”
Cowritten with Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan,” law.stanfored.edu, Sep. 2012
“The Global Justice Clinic explores how human rights law can be brought to bear on situations of global injustice, and whether, how, and when human rights work can be rights-based. Working on cases and projects that involve cross-border human rights violations, the deleterious impacts of extraterritorial activities by state and non-state actors, and emerging problems that require close collaboration between actors at the local and international levels, students engage in human rights advocacy in domestic and international settings.”
“Global Justice Clinic,” www.law.nyu.edu (accessed Apr. 11, 2014)
- Law school clinic
- Quoted in:
- Pro & Con Quotes: Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?