It seems to me the use of drones against U.S. citizens in the U.S. would be indistinguishable from the use of other manned aircraft or for that matter ground personnel. This seems acceptable (or constitutional, if you like) only in the event of civil war, such as experienced by the U.S. in the 19th century or in the event of foreign invasion (with actual enemy occupancy of U.S. territory) such as occurred during the War of 1812 and (much later) on Attu island by the Japanese during WWII. Something akin to assassination by drone or otherwise, I can't see as being constitutionally permissible outside of this scope. Has anyone seen any scholarship that persuasively would permit the use of drones against targets within the U.S. outside of contexts such as these?
Just to let anyone know who may be interested, I have found little to no persuasive scholarship that would permit this. When I asked the question, it had been a topic of interest in the U.S.--perhaps influenced by the media or political debate--but there is no legal or ethical basis that I could find regarding the use of drones this way under U.S. constitutional law.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing