The growing amount of drone strikes used to counter terrorism has created doubt about whether the technology is being used in a humane and just way.

On December 12, 2013, a United States drone strike killed at least 12 people and wounded at least 15 at a wedding procession in Yemen, according to a Feb. 20 Washington Post article. It has remained ambiguous whether those killed were civilians or combatants associated with the intended target Shawqi Ali Ahmed al-Badani, a mid-level al-Qaeda leader.

In May last year, President Obama addressed the risk of civilian casualties in drone strikes. He stressed that there must be “near-certainty” that there will be no civilian casualties. This policy is essential to maintain morality in drone use. A Human Rights Watch report released on Feb. 20 raises serious questions about whether this policy has been adhered to.

Reports by U.S. and Yemeni officials are inconsistent — some claim all deaths were militant and others claim that all were civilian casualties. This discrepancy reveals that it is unclear to the media and the public whether this drone strike was justified.

In order for drone strikes to be considered legal under international humanitarian law, the attack must specifically target combatants or fighters.

The Human Rights Watch report revealed it is unclear whether or not civilians were killed in the attacks. Drone strikes must align with Obama’s policy of “near-certainty.” It is possible that this attack was purely militant, but due to the lack of disclosure it is impossible to discern the truth.

It is essential that the U.S. government be transparent and fully disclose information regarding these attacks. Official reports should be released shortly after the strikes have been carried out. These reports should include the location of the strike, a list of the names of people killed or harmed and their affiliation with terrorist groups. Drone technology is new and under-regulated. For this technology to be used in a humane and just way, transparency is essential. It is unclear whether the U.S. military has been abusing this technology.

Specifically targeted drone strikes can restrict the threat of terrorism and protect U.S. troops. However, regulatory policy must be created and strictly followed to protect civilians and the integrity of the U.S. military. The risk of these attacks must be calculated. Unfortunately, due to the lack of disclosure and skepticism, it appears these attacks may have resulted in civilian casualties.

Regardless of the outcome of these attacks, information about the results must be made public. The silence on the part of the White House implies guilt. The U.S. should take responsibility if there have been miscalculations made, which the inconsistency in the reporting implies.

Without disclosure, skepticism about drone use will continue to rise. The current ambiguity about the Dec. 12 attack, amongst others, has compromised public trust in U.S. actions abroad. It is crucial that this trust be maintained to quell doubts regarding the integrity of our military actions.

The consequences for reckless and unjustified drone strikes are immense. The number of civilian casualties caused by drones is vague and wildly uncertain. If the results of drone strikes are disclosed directly by the U.S. government, this doubt will begin to subside.

Disclosure and transparency of drone use does not jeopardize U.S. security. This information should only be released after the drone strikes have taken place and exclude information that would threaten the safety of U.S. citizens. It is essential to balance security with transparency.

Rachel Potter is a junior political science and sociology major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected]u

Published on February 23, 2014 at 11:30 pm