Recently Obama has pulled a page right out the Bush Administration and the Patriot Act by passing laws that now make it legal for the Federal government to use drones on U.S. citizens that are “imminent threats.” For those of you that do not know, drones are like large remote control airplanes that can take pictures, shoot video, and fire deadly missiles. The U.S. has been using drones on foreign nations for years and they have proven to be beneficial because they gather information about possible nuclear weapons in nations like Iran and North Korea without risking the lives of soldiers. However, the recent news about drones being used on U.S. citizens is a bit disconcerting because the phrase “imminent threat” is ambiguous. Imminent implies that something is about to happen, but according to political columnist Roger Simons the Justice Department claims imminent does not “require evidence that an ‘event will take place in the immediate future.’” Instead a U.S. official “merely has to determine that a bad guy has been planning violent activities against the United States and ‘there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.’”
I acknowledge that there are some good things about drones, especially in preventing risking the lives of soldiers, but this recent news opens up a new issue about national security and I’m curious to hear some of your thoughts?