The Use of Drones by the United States Military should be allowed.

ALL READERS NOTE: There is a new resolution suggested by the CON party and agreed on by the PRO party and it reads as follows: The current use of weaponized drones by the American Government should be allowed.Now let’s move onto my arguments:Question: What are drones being used for currently? And Are they effective?Answer: “[Drones] are used for surveillance and targeted killings, allowing the United States to carry out certain missions without risking the lives of military personnel. [1]” They also help local law enforcement as shown in the following case: http://www.theblaze.com...Drones have proven to be a much more effective option at collecting surveillance and fighting against Al-Qaeda by having the same effectiveness as normal pilots while not risking American lives and personal. They are usually equipped with self-detonating capability so they can’t be taken by enemies. [2] Moreover, they cannot be tortured by enemies like human personal can. It provides less risk for the same reward, which is self-evidently a much better choice.And as long as we are on that note: “Today, for the first time, the estimated civilian death rate is at or close to zero.” [3]Question: Is the current use of drones legal?Answer: Yes.On the domestic front, drones are mainly used to patrol parts of the borders not patrolled by law enforcement, which is certainly not illegal. [4] Also drones are used with helping law enforcement in stand offs as stated in the previously questions first point, another thing which is not illegal.In Foreign countries, drones are used to attack terror training camps and proven Taliban and Al-Qaeda hideouts, terrorist and/or terror leaders. [2]My opponent could possibly bring up the point of international law and how drone strikes violate it; however, this is inapplicable here because terrorists aren’t nations. Moreover, commentary on article 23 (b) of the Hague Conventions (Conventions which are part of the legal framework for the rules of war) IV of 1907 Article 23 (b) says that we can attack people who are part of an enemy force anywhere. The Hague Convention has been law for over 100 years. Moreover the Army Field Manual 27-10, reaffirmed it in 1956. [5]The Problem with my opponent’s argument:There are two main concerns evident with my opponents arguments:1). One can not blame drones for the grievances one has against is them. Blaming drones for ones problems with them is akin to saying the “Gun’s kill people” or “Spoons make people fat.” Conversely, People kill people, people who eat unhealthy food make people fat, and the military causes grievances one might have. Drones are not responsible. If drones caused a grievance with somebody, that person wouldn't’t accuse the drone, they would accuse the military. Hold the military responsible, not the drone. 2). Let’s take my opponents beliefs when it comes to drones and let’s say we enforce them, What will happen? We would either regulate drones or eliminate them. This won’t do anything though but put us farther behind the world. It is possible that 60 nations have the capability of using drones, and if we eliminate the use of them or even regulate them, other nations most likely won’t do the same and we will be farther behind other nations. In this instance, we have to accept the idea that we need to fight fire with fire, and that less drones are not the answer to fixing problems. What have we established? Drones are safer for American military personnel, they are legal when it comes to international law and that the opposition to drones and their fundamental beliefs are unrealistic, blaming the wrong thing, and fundamentally inane. Conclusion: The current use of drones by the United States Government should be continued to be allowed.Sources:[1] http://www.cnn.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.cnn.com...[4] http://www.opensecrets.org...[5] http://msnbcmedia.msn.com...[6] http://www.theblaze.com...