This site has moved! Please check out samuelgoldman.net
The Effects of New Voter Identification Laws and What to Do About Them
Writing and Public Discourse (UCSB) | 2014
Introduction
One recent and highly controversial political issue is the proposal and implementation of stricter voting limits. Many states have been working to create new voter ID laws meant to curb voting fraud, which, these states contend, is a serious concern. Republicans and conservatives have tended toward supporting such measures and insist they are necessary, while Democrats and liberals generally contend that the prevalence of voter fraud is inflated by the laws’ proponents and that the laws are really meant to restrict groups who vote Democratic. While many states already have some form of a voter ID law, over the last few years, several others, such as Pennsylvania and North Carolina, began a sudden push to enact or strengthen ID laws. Without a proper solution, detrimental effects on our ability to elect the people who run the country could be significant. If Republicans are correct, failure to enact these new laws could result in dubious election results, while if Democrats are right, these laws’ enactment could spell trouble for minorities, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and students trying to exercise their right to vote.
I would like to know whether or not these new and proposed laws would actually be necessary and effective obstacles to voter fraud. Will these laws predominantly prevent fraud or would they mainly make it harder for certain people to vote (or both)? At least one side on the debate must be grossly exaggerating their concerns and fudging or misrepresenting facts, and I would like to know which one(s). An analysis of literature on voter ID laws should point the way to a policy solution that would presumably bring about a conclusion to partisan bickering and enfranchise the most people while limiting any possible voter fraud.
Review of Past Literature
The type of photo ID required to vote depends on the specific law in each state and can, in some cases, require citizens to obtain an approved one. In her study on new voter ID laws, Emily McGann (2012) found that the number of states with photo ID laws quadrupled in 2011: “additional voting requirements disproportionately affect communities of color, young voters, poor voters and voters with disabilities. These minority groups are much less likely to carry the identification accruements of mainstream society (such as a driver’s licenses or passports), and would have more trouble obtaining them than the average voter” (p. 2). A survey done by NYU School of Law’s prominent Brennan Center for Justice (2006) discovered that 13 million citizens do not have easy access to citizenship documents, that citizens making under $25,000 a year are twice as likely to not have the requisite documentation, and that there are “more than 21 million American adult citizens nationwide who do not possess valid government photo ID” (p. 3).
The main form of voting fraud the laws’ proponents are concerned about is voter impersonation — a person posing as another in order to vote for them. According to David Marker (2013), a statistician for research service corporation Westat, of over 2,000 alleged cases of election fraud since 2000, “only 10 were of the impersonation type that might be prevented by such laws” (p. 46), or about 1 case per every 14.7 million registered voters. McGann’s study revealed that courts did not accept states’ defenses of their ID laws — that they’re predominantly meant to combat fraud and impersonation — when they cannot provide actual evidence of fraud occurring. Without evidence, the laws, ruled courts, effectively amount to an undue burden on voters, as they’re not meaningful measures to protect the election process. That means that, since 2000, states attempting to defend their laws in court had nationally only ten contemporary cases to choose from. McGann also points out that “voter fraud is not a single-type problem; voter impersonation, voting multiple times, and voting after disenfranchisement are a few different types of what is considered ‘voter fraud’. Voter ID laws would only address the first type — voter impersonation” (p. 16).
Justin Levitt, of the Brennan Center for Justice, found in a 2007 study of voting fraud that many accidental voting issues and irregularities, such as glitches in voting machines or election fliers printed with the wrong information, lead to problems that are included in the term “voting fraud” — issues he points out that simply cannot be remedied by the new and proposed laws. Because of this, “it appears that fraud by voters is much more common than is actually the case. This, in turn, promotes inappropriate policy” (p. 4). Levitt (2007) found that “on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire [because the] allegations simply do not pan out” (p. 3). He adds that “these claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well disenfranchise legitimate voters” (p. 3).
Findings
Research into the nature and effects of the new and proposed voter ID laws makes it abundantly clear that they are not a good idea. Considering the millions of eligible voters who do not have easy access to the requisite identification and the miniscule number of fraud cases the laws would prevent, the enactment of these laws would only provide an undue burden on a significant portion of the eligible population’s right to vote. Therefore, the laws do not aid in protecting the integrity of elections while they effectively disenfranchise significantly more people than the fraudulent cases they prevent. Judging by the Brennan Center’s survey and David Marker’s analysis, possibly millions of people might not get the opportunity to vote in order to prevent fewer than a dozen fraud cases. With such striking results as these, it is hard to believe that these laws, formulated by politicians who presumably investigated the nature of voting and voting fraud, were intended to do anything beyond block portions of the opposing party’s voters from casting their ballots. Thus, a reasonable conclusion is that the Democratic Party is, in fact, correct about the purposes and effects of states’ new and proposed voter ID laws.
Solution
It is now clear that new laws requiring certain forms of photo identification at the election polls are far from what the country needs and will be effective only in limiting eligible people’s right to vote. If the goal remains to prevent as much voting fraud as possible — in all its extant forms — and we are not satisfied with having no changes to the law, there exist solutions. A relatively simple and inexpensive one that originated with McGann that I recommend is for voters to sign some form of an oath at the poll. The document could request confirmation that the voter is not intending to vote fraudulently and spells out the penalty for doing so. An upfront warning to individuals about to vote illegally of what they will face if they commit fraud (up to a $10,000 fine and one year in jail) could help deter them from doing so. Additionally, the signature provided on the oath could be later compared to the signature given when a person originally registered to vote. Given how rare impersonation actually is, only a simple solution like this is really needed and should suffice in deterring it and easily investigating any cases that do still occur.
But this solution doesn’t just address impersonation. The oath would not only address and warn against it but against multiple votes and voting after disenfranchisement (i.e., voting after being convicted of a criminal offense) as well. Aside from upfront knowledge of the penalties, the signatures can be compared to the original voter registration, which connects to state-run databases that keep tabs on who is eligible to vote. The implementation of this policy would therefore make it easier to quickly confirm or debunk allegations of fraud in a timely manner.
Other election irregularities — those caused by the administration of elections — that get thrown together with the above issues under the general term “voting fraud,” can only be effectively addressed from within the election administration system itself. Elections officials and poll workers must work harder to ensure that they have a comprehensive, correct knowledge of the voting procedures and logistics and that any technology, such as automated voting machines, are easy to use, tested, and fully up to scratch before being widely utilized. More knowledgeable officials and simple voting techniques would be valuable in catching intentional fraud and preventing accidental fraud.
All-in-all, the integrity of our elections can be preserved without effectively disenfranchising a significant portion of eligible voters (in fact, one could argue that the disenfranchisement could itself constitute lost integrity). The minute levels of voter fraud can be better prevented with a signed oath at the poll that does not require any extra effort or impose an undue burden on citizens who have already registered. By implementing this oath-and-signature policy, we can make actual headway in the fight against voting fraud and not have to pretend we are not attempting to constrain the opposition’s voting base.
Bibliography
Citizens without proof: a survey of Americans’ possession of documentary proof of citizenship and photo identification. (2006). Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf
Levitt, J. (2007). The truth about voter fraud. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Vot%er20Fraud.pdf
Marker, D. (2013). The statistical role in voter identification (ID) laws. Statistics and Public Policy, 1. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2013.856710#tabModule
McGann, E. (2012). Voter ID laws: reasonable restriction or voter suppression tactic?. The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/135477/1/McGann_Voter%20ID%20Laws.pdf
One recent and highly controversial political issue is the proposal and implementation of stricter voting limits. Many states have been working to create new voter ID laws meant to curb voting fraud, which, these states contend, is a serious concern. Republicans and conservatives have tended toward supporting such measures and insist they are necessary, while Democrats and liberals generally contend that the prevalence of voter fraud is inflated by the laws’ proponents and that the laws are really meant to restrict groups who vote Democratic. While many states already have some form of a voter ID law, over the last few years, several others, such as Pennsylvania and North Carolina, began a sudden push to enact or strengthen ID laws. Without a proper solution, detrimental effects on our ability to elect the people who run the country could be significant. If Republicans are correct, failure to enact these new laws could result in dubious election results, while if Democrats are right, these laws’ enactment could spell trouble for minorities, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and students trying to exercise their right to vote.
I would like to know whether or not these new and proposed laws would actually be necessary and effective obstacles to voter fraud. Will these laws predominantly prevent fraud or would they mainly make it harder for certain people to vote (or both)? At least one side on the debate must be grossly exaggerating their concerns and fudging or misrepresenting facts, and I would like to know which one(s). An analysis of literature on voter ID laws should point the way to a policy solution that would presumably bring about a conclusion to partisan bickering and enfranchise the most people while limiting any possible voter fraud.
Review of Past Literature
The type of photo ID required to vote depends on the specific law in each state and can, in some cases, require citizens to obtain an approved one. In her study on new voter ID laws, Emily McGann (2012) found that the number of states with photo ID laws quadrupled in 2011: “additional voting requirements disproportionately affect communities of color, young voters, poor voters and voters with disabilities. These minority groups are much less likely to carry the identification accruements of mainstream society (such as a driver’s licenses or passports), and would have more trouble obtaining them than the average voter” (p. 2). A survey done by NYU School of Law’s prominent Brennan Center for Justice (2006) discovered that 13 million citizens do not have easy access to citizenship documents, that citizens making under $25,000 a year are twice as likely to not have the requisite documentation, and that there are “more than 21 million American adult citizens nationwide who do not possess valid government photo ID” (p. 3).
The main form of voting fraud the laws’ proponents are concerned about is voter impersonation — a person posing as another in order to vote for them. According to David Marker (2013), a statistician for research service corporation Westat, of over 2,000 alleged cases of election fraud since 2000, “only 10 were of the impersonation type that might be prevented by such laws” (p. 46), or about 1 case per every 14.7 million registered voters. McGann’s study revealed that courts did not accept states’ defenses of their ID laws — that they’re predominantly meant to combat fraud and impersonation — when they cannot provide actual evidence of fraud occurring. Without evidence, the laws, ruled courts, effectively amount to an undue burden on voters, as they’re not meaningful measures to protect the election process. That means that, since 2000, states attempting to defend their laws in court had nationally only ten contemporary cases to choose from. McGann also points out that “voter fraud is not a single-type problem; voter impersonation, voting multiple times, and voting after disenfranchisement are a few different types of what is considered ‘voter fraud’. Voter ID laws would only address the first type — voter impersonation” (p. 16).
Justin Levitt, of the Brennan Center for Justice, found in a 2007 study of voting fraud that many accidental voting issues and irregularities, such as glitches in voting machines or election fliers printed with the wrong information, lead to problems that are included in the term “voting fraud” — issues he points out that simply cannot be remedied by the new and proposed laws. Because of this, “it appears that fraud by voters is much more common than is actually the case. This, in turn, promotes inappropriate policy” (p. 4). Levitt (2007) found that “on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire [because the] allegations simply do not pan out” (p. 3). He adds that “these claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well disenfranchise legitimate voters” (p. 3).
Findings
Research into the nature and effects of the new and proposed voter ID laws makes it abundantly clear that they are not a good idea. Considering the millions of eligible voters who do not have easy access to the requisite identification and the miniscule number of fraud cases the laws would prevent, the enactment of these laws would only provide an undue burden on a significant portion of the eligible population’s right to vote. Therefore, the laws do not aid in protecting the integrity of elections while they effectively disenfranchise significantly more people than the fraudulent cases they prevent. Judging by the Brennan Center’s survey and David Marker’s analysis, possibly millions of people might not get the opportunity to vote in order to prevent fewer than a dozen fraud cases. With such striking results as these, it is hard to believe that these laws, formulated by politicians who presumably investigated the nature of voting and voting fraud, were intended to do anything beyond block portions of the opposing party’s voters from casting their ballots. Thus, a reasonable conclusion is that the Democratic Party is, in fact, correct about the purposes and effects of states’ new and proposed voter ID laws.
Solution
It is now clear that new laws requiring certain forms of photo identification at the election polls are far from what the country needs and will be effective only in limiting eligible people’s right to vote. If the goal remains to prevent as much voting fraud as possible — in all its extant forms — and we are not satisfied with having no changes to the law, there exist solutions. A relatively simple and inexpensive one that originated with McGann that I recommend is for voters to sign some form of an oath at the poll. The document could request confirmation that the voter is not intending to vote fraudulently and spells out the penalty for doing so. An upfront warning to individuals about to vote illegally of what they will face if they commit fraud (up to a $10,000 fine and one year in jail) could help deter them from doing so. Additionally, the signature provided on the oath could be later compared to the signature given when a person originally registered to vote. Given how rare impersonation actually is, only a simple solution like this is really needed and should suffice in deterring it and easily investigating any cases that do still occur.
But this solution doesn’t just address impersonation. The oath would not only address and warn against it but against multiple votes and voting after disenfranchisement (i.e., voting after being convicted of a criminal offense) as well. Aside from upfront knowledge of the penalties, the signatures can be compared to the original voter registration, which connects to state-run databases that keep tabs on who is eligible to vote. The implementation of this policy would therefore make it easier to quickly confirm or debunk allegations of fraud in a timely manner.
Other election irregularities — those caused by the administration of elections — that get thrown together with the above issues under the general term “voting fraud,” can only be effectively addressed from within the election administration system itself. Elections officials and poll workers must work harder to ensure that they have a comprehensive, correct knowledge of the voting procedures and logistics and that any technology, such as automated voting machines, are easy to use, tested, and fully up to scratch before being widely utilized. More knowledgeable officials and simple voting techniques would be valuable in catching intentional fraud and preventing accidental fraud.
All-in-all, the integrity of our elections can be preserved without effectively disenfranchising a significant portion of eligible voters (in fact, one could argue that the disenfranchisement could itself constitute lost integrity). The minute levels of voter fraud can be better prevented with a signed oath at the poll that does not require any extra effort or impose an undue burden on citizens who have already registered. By implementing this oath-and-signature policy, we can make actual headway in the fight against voting fraud and not have to pretend we are not attempting to constrain the opposition’s voting base.
Bibliography
Citizens without proof: a survey of Americans’ possession of documentary proof of citizenship and photo identification. (2006). Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf
Levitt, J. (2007). The truth about voter fraud. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Vot%er20Fraud.pdf
Marker, D. (2013). The statistical role in voter identification (ID) laws. Statistics and Public Policy, 1. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2013.856710#tabModule
McGann, E. (2012). Voter ID laws: reasonable restriction or voter suppression tactic?. The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/135477/1/McGann_Voter%20ID%20Laws.pdf
How Differing Conflicts Reveal Global Governance's Weakness
Global History, Culture, and Ideology (UCSB) | 2013
Despite provisions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions, as well as global pressure to foster people’s rights and wellbeing, suffering and injustice still occur in certain states throughout the world. Some of these provisions and the role of the United Nations are meant to be guidelines for when states may intervene in offending countries in order to remedy these problems. Recently, Libya and Syria have been at the forefront of international attention for their intra-country conflict and have been treated very differently by the international community; in the relatively short and less violent Libyan civil war, international forces became very involved in the conflict while in the longer, bloodier Syrian civil war, the international community has kept a very hands-off approach. The hesitancy regarding action in Syria can be attributed to a rough combination of political posturing by global powers and an unwillingness to take responsibility for an incredibly complicated conflict. It reflects the weakness and unenforceability of the established system of global governance and hints at a less formal but more prevalent form of governance.
Muammar Gaddafi’s attacks on protesters and later rebels initially prompted international intervention in order to protect civilians from attack and enforce a no fly zone.* The United States, always one for participating in foreign conflict yet wary of them since recent failed interventions in the Middle East, more or less led the intervention once it had more than enough backing from the U.N. and participation by many other states. Another reasonable cause for quick, multilateral intervention was the conflict’s location: Africa. While the continent is in many respects similar to the Middle East in its constant crises that are often extremely difficult to resolve, it does not share as infamous a reputation for military intervention. Due in part to the disasters that were predominantly the U.S.’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nations are hesitant to wade into conflict there and are more likely to intervene in an under-appreciated and under-recognized region that is in many ways economically and developmentally beholden to the interveners.**
An additional reason for why international forces went into Libya and not Syria is the relative complexity of the two conflicts. Despite Gaddafi’s attacks, the war in Libya had not escalated to the point Syria’s has and tackling it was relatively easy for intervening forces. Syria, on the other hand, has seen over 120,000 people die, millions displaced, chemical weapons used, and the opposition fragmented into different groups with different goals and ideologies.*** Despite the horrific bloodshed and the use of strictly banned chemical weapons, the amount of time, resources, and death an intervening group would have to spend to begin to solve the crisis would likely be incredible. Although the Syrian civilians are in desperate need of help, no nation appears to be willing to follow what could very easily be a similar situation to what the U.S. had with Iraq.
Intervening forces in Libya also had a plan for how to deal with that conflict, especially considering that it had not yet escalated to the level seen in Syria and could be dealt with relatively quickly and cleanly. Other than a miraculous agreement between the warring parties in Syria to come to a peaceable agreement, the one thing the other nations of the world can agree on is that there is no solution that is remotely easy or clean. There is no telling what intervening nations would have to face in an attempt to right Syria, which is encouraging them sit on their hands for the time being.
Political posturing among the largest of the world’s powers is also to blame for a lack of intervention in Syria. The United States is against Assad, but cannot fully support the opposition as a whole because many factions have been labeled terrorist organizations and other factions could conceivably initiate their own oppressive regimes. Russia, which has lately been trying to flex its international muscles and influence in order to compete with the U.S., remains a supporter of Assad. Russia thus appears to be taking another stance opposite the U.S. in order not to have to fall complacently in line with American interests like much of the rest of the world often does. Though both countries arguably want to be viewed as the more powerful, influential one that can act without fear of the other, an American attack on Assad would constitute an attack on Russia’s ally and a Russian attack against the opposition would constitute an attack on American interests and both could lead to uncomfortably high tensions.
All of this clearly demonstrates the weakness of the established global governance system. Despite atrocities going on in Syria that more than qualify for an international response, no meaningful action has been taken. States are going to continue to do as they want whether they are technically required to at least make an effort to help or not. A considerable factor in global governance’s weakness is its unenforceability. The only nations that are really capable of intervening in Syria are the ones whose buttons the U.N. does not want to push — which it would have to do if it wants to intervene — and telling these nations what to do would be taken by many of them as an affront. Other than what comes down to appealing to nations’ humanitarian sides, there is nothing the U.N. can really do to ensure an attempt is made to curb the violence.
Though the established form of global governance is obviously pretty weak, we see hints of a more influential unestablished and informal form of global governance in the way of nations acting in accordance to what the more powerful countries want. Many nations joined the War on Terror at the behest of the United States and would likely only go into Syria if they saw the U.S. go in first. Significant proposals are often derailed in the U.N. by the U.S., Russia, or China. Ukraine hesitates to integrate with the European Union and faces massive protests because Russia does not want it to. International objectives for a wide range of issues often fall flat on their backs if one of these top countries refuses to participate. Rather than the world being governed by the U.N. and other established protocols, in reality it often acts in accordance with the interests of these top countries.
Unless states can be convinced that the need to curb the violence and suffering in Syria is worth the hassle of taking it on, nothing will likely happen any time soon. If the U.N. wants to truly be able to do what it was designed to do, it will have to find a way to overcome the opposing interests of countries like the U.S. and Russia. Until that happens, we will continue to see an arbitrary pattern of effectual and ineffectual interventions around the world.
Works Cited
*United Nations Security Council: Security Council Approves “No-Fly Zone” Over Libya, Authorizing “All Necessary Measures” to Protect Civilians, By Vote of 10 in Favour With 5 Abstentions. March 17, 2011
**Philip McCarty. Integrated Perspectives in Global Studies: Introductions: Decolonization, Postcolonialism, and the Third World & Global Inequality
***Center for Strategic and International Studies: The Human Cost of the Syrian Civil War. September 3, 2013
Muammar Gaddafi’s attacks on protesters and later rebels initially prompted international intervention in order to protect civilians from attack and enforce a no fly zone.* The United States, always one for participating in foreign conflict yet wary of them since recent failed interventions in the Middle East, more or less led the intervention once it had more than enough backing from the U.N. and participation by many other states. Another reasonable cause for quick, multilateral intervention was the conflict’s location: Africa. While the continent is in many respects similar to the Middle East in its constant crises that are often extremely difficult to resolve, it does not share as infamous a reputation for military intervention. Due in part to the disasters that were predominantly the U.S.’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nations are hesitant to wade into conflict there and are more likely to intervene in an under-appreciated and under-recognized region that is in many ways economically and developmentally beholden to the interveners.**
An additional reason for why international forces went into Libya and not Syria is the relative complexity of the two conflicts. Despite Gaddafi’s attacks, the war in Libya had not escalated to the point Syria’s has and tackling it was relatively easy for intervening forces. Syria, on the other hand, has seen over 120,000 people die, millions displaced, chemical weapons used, and the opposition fragmented into different groups with different goals and ideologies.*** Despite the horrific bloodshed and the use of strictly banned chemical weapons, the amount of time, resources, and death an intervening group would have to spend to begin to solve the crisis would likely be incredible. Although the Syrian civilians are in desperate need of help, no nation appears to be willing to follow what could very easily be a similar situation to what the U.S. had with Iraq.
Intervening forces in Libya also had a plan for how to deal with that conflict, especially considering that it had not yet escalated to the level seen in Syria and could be dealt with relatively quickly and cleanly. Other than a miraculous agreement between the warring parties in Syria to come to a peaceable agreement, the one thing the other nations of the world can agree on is that there is no solution that is remotely easy or clean. There is no telling what intervening nations would have to face in an attempt to right Syria, which is encouraging them sit on their hands for the time being.
Political posturing among the largest of the world’s powers is also to blame for a lack of intervention in Syria. The United States is against Assad, but cannot fully support the opposition as a whole because many factions have been labeled terrorist organizations and other factions could conceivably initiate their own oppressive regimes. Russia, which has lately been trying to flex its international muscles and influence in order to compete with the U.S., remains a supporter of Assad. Russia thus appears to be taking another stance opposite the U.S. in order not to have to fall complacently in line with American interests like much of the rest of the world often does. Though both countries arguably want to be viewed as the more powerful, influential one that can act without fear of the other, an American attack on Assad would constitute an attack on Russia’s ally and a Russian attack against the opposition would constitute an attack on American interests and both could lead to uncomfortably high tensions.
All of this clearly demonstrates the weakness of the established global governance system. Despite atrocities going on in Syria that more than qualify for an international response, no meaningful action has been taken. States are going to continue to do as they want whether they are technically required to at least make an effort to help or not. A considerable factor in global governance’s weakness is its unenforceability. The only nations that are really capable of intervening in Syria are the ones whose buttons the U.N. does not want to push — which it would have to do if it wants to intervene — and telling these nations what to do would be taken by many of them as an affront. Other than what comes down to appealing to nations’ humanitarian sides, there is nothing the U.N. can really do to ensure an attempt is made to curb the violence.
Though the established form of global governance is obviously pretty weak, we see hints of a more influential unestablished and informal form of global governance in the way of nations acting in accordance to what the more powerful countries want. Many nations joined the War on Terror at the behest of the United States and would likely only go into Syria if they saw the U.S. go in first. Significant proposals are often derailed in the U.N. by the U.S., Russia, or China. Ukraine hesitates to integrate with the European Union and faces massive protests because Russia does not want it to. International objectives for a wide range of issues often fall flat on their backs if one of these top countries refuses to participate. Rather than the world being governed by the U.N. and other established protocols, in reality it often acts in accordance with the interests of these top countries.
Unless states can be convinced that the need to curb the violence and suffering in Syria is worth the hassle of taking it on, nothing will likely happen any time soon. If the U.N. wants to truly be able to do what it was designed to do, it will have to find a way to overcome the opposing interests of countries like the U.S. and Russia. Until that happens, we will continue to see an arbitrary pattern of effectual and ineffectual interventions around the world.
Works Cited
*United Nations Security Council: Security Council Approves “No-Fly Zone” Over Libya, Authorizing “All Necessary Measures” to Protect Civilians, By Vote of 10 in Favour With 5 Abstentions. March 17, 2011
**Philip McCarty. Integrated Perspectives in Global Studies: Introductions: Decolonization, Postcolonialism, and the Third World & Global Inequality
***Center for Strategic and International Studies: The Human Cost of the Syrian Civil War. September 3, 2013
U.S. Drone Policy: More of a Human Rights Problem than a National Security Measure
Global History, Culture, and Ideology | 2013
For a while now, the United States has been the target of international criticism regarding the way it pits national security against human rights. From the indefinite incarceration of accused terrorists in Guantanamo Bay to the N.S.A.’s spying on both American and foreign people, the U.S. has been employing ethically questionable practices in the name of defending the country against national security threats. Perhaps one of the most controversial practices is the use of drone warfare in civilian areas outside any zone of war. Though these drone strikes may eliminate potential threats to the U.S., they commit terrible human rights abuses that outweigh any benefits the strikes may confer.
Drone attacks are meant to be a stealthier, safer, and more efficient way to get rid of terrorists who plot to attack or undermine the U.S. So far, over 2,100 terrorists have been killed by them* without putting a single American soldier at risk. These attacks, which go after some of the most dangerous individuals in the world, do not require anyone in the military to put themselves in danger because they are controlled remotely. Troops do not have to trek across harsh landscapes with a host of supplies, but can rely on faster and stealthier vehicles to do the job. With drones, less time, effort, and resources have to be expended in order to kill the individuals who supposedly are the greatest threat to national security. With so many threats from around the world, on the surface it might make sense to utilize these benefits to maximize our ability to keep the country safe.
While drones may in fact help keep the country safe, they are also the cause of inexcusable human rights abuses. Many of the strikes occur in areas outside of any zone of war and in civilian populations. Because of this, dozens of innocent civilians have been killed over the years,* the drones not always accurate enough to kill only the targeted individuals. This is an explicit violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians, whether they are in a war zone or not, from being mistreated or treated as simply collateral damage within a frame of war.** As such, using drones amounts to a war crime and completely violates these civilians’ basic right to life. The Geneva Conventions also compel parties in war to help take care of injured civilians** — something the U.S. does not bother to do after its drones maim innocents.
Drone use also flies in the face of another significant agreement on human rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document, originally supported by the U.S. like the Fourth Geneva Convention, established the right of all persons “to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”*** No matter how dangerous the targets of drones are nor how heinous their crimes, the U.S. is compelled to at least provide a trial for them, even if they are more than likely to be found guilty. Is seems strange that, even before the U.D.H.R. was adopted, the U.S. strongly insisted on a trial to try the Nazi leaders after World War Two for crimes more heinous than these terrorists’,**** but does not want to consider doing it for its modern day enemies.
In addition to blatantly violating human rights, using drones outside of war zones also ignores other countries’ sovereignty. Generally, the U.S. conducts its strikes and kills civilians in other countries without those countries’ permission. In doing so, this policy disregards other nations’ right to control affairs within their own borders.
While not using drones does not at all guarantee or encourage an attack on national security, each use of them clearly does violate basic human rights. It is very likely that more innocent people are killed by drones than if they were not used; there are other, much more ethical ways to capture terrorists that still prevent national security threats and do not kill civilians. International anger and disgust over this could potentially inflame greater, more potent anti-American sentiment that could spawn more of the threats drones are meant to eliminate.
Not only does it result in the deaths of dozens of innocent people, drone use, inadvertently or not, sets a couple of dangerous precedents. Firstly, it makes the U.S. look as if it is in another class completely above any other country that allows it to do whatever it wants throughout the world if it alone deems its actions proper. Secondly, it can encourage other governments and organizations to take illegal and unethical actions as a way to reach its goals if basic human rights appear to be something that are liable to exceptions or simply not terribly important.
Though of course it is important for a government and military to protect its people, it also has an obligation to respect other countries and their citizens’ most basic rights. American drone policy has become a greater attack on human rights than a defender of national security. If the U.S. is willing to disregard the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other nations’ sovereignty so blatantly, why should it expect other nations not to carry out the same kind of inhumane warfare on American soil?
Works Cited
*Dawn: 2,160 terrorists, 67 civilians killed by drones. October 31, 2013
**Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. 1949
***Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948
****Religion, Race, Rights: Landmarks in the History of Modern Anglo-American Law. Darian-Smith, Eve. 2010
Drone attacks are meant to be a stealthier, safer, and more efficient way to get rid of terrorists who plot to attack or undermine the U.S. So far, over 2,100 terrorists have been killed by them* without putting a single American soldier at risk. These attacks, which go after some of the most dangerous individuals in the world, do not require anyone in the military to put themselves in danger because they are controlled remotely. Troops do not have to trek across harsh landscapes with a host of supplies, but can rely on faster and stealthier vehicles to do the job. With drones, less time, effort, and resources have to be expended in order to kill the individuals who supposedly are the greatest threat to national security. With so many threats from around the world, on the surface it might make sense to utilize these benefits to maximize our ability to keep the country safe.
While drones may in fact help keep the country safe, they are also the cause of inexcusable human rights abuses. Many of the strikes occur in areas outside of any zone of war and in civilian populations. Because of this, dozens of innocent civilians have been killed over the years,* the drones not always accurate enough to kill only the targeted individuals. This is an explicit violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians, whether they are in a war zone or not, from being mistreated or treated as simply collateral damage within a frame of war.** As such, using drones amounts to a war crime and completely violates these civilians’ basic right to life. The Geneva Conventions also compel parties in war to help take care of injured civilians** — something the U.S. does not bother to do after its drones maim innocents.
Drone use also flies in the face of another significant agreement on human rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document, originally supported by the U.S. like the Fourth Geneva Convention, established the right of all persons “to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”*** No matter how dangerous the targets of drones are nor how heinous their crimes, the U.S. is compelled to at least provide a trial for them, even if they are more than likely to be found guilty. Is seems strange that, even before the U.D.H.R. was adopted, the U.S. strongly insisted on a trial to try the Nazi leaders after World War Two for crimes more heinous than these terrorists’,**** but does not want to consider doing it for its modern day enemies.
In addition to blatantly violating human rights, using drones outside of war zones also ignores other countries’ sovereignty. Generally, the U.S. conducts its strikes and kills civilians in other countries without those countries’ permission. In doing so, this policy disregards other nations’ right to control affairs within their own borders.
While not using drones does not at all guarantee or encourage an attack on national security, each use of them clearly does violate basic human rights. It is very likely that more innocent people are killed by drones than if they were not used; there are other, much more ethical ways to capture terrorists that still prevent national security threats and do not kill civilians. International anger and disgust over this could potentially inflame greater, more potent anti-American sentiment that could spawn more of the threats drones are meant to eliminate.
Not only does it result in the deaths of dozens of innocent people, drone use, inadvertently or not, sets a couple of dangerous precedents. Firstly, it makes the U.S. look as if it is in another class completely above any other country that allows it to do whatever it wants throughout the world if it alone deems its actions proper. Secondly, it can encourage other governments and organizations to take illegal and unethical actions as a way to reach its goals if basic human rights appear to be something that are liable to exceptions or simply not terribly important.
Though of course it is important for a government and military to protect its people, it also has an obligation to respect other countries and their citizens’ most basic rights. American drone policy has become a greater attack on human rights than a defender of national security. If the U.S. is willing to disregard the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other nations’ sovereignty so blatantly, why should it expect other nations not to carry out the same kind of inhumane warfare on American soil?
Works Cited
*Dawn: 2,160 terrorists, 67 civilians killed by drones. October 31, 2013
**Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. 1949
***Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948
****Religion, Race, Rights: Landmarks in the History of Modern Anglo-American Law. Darian-Smith, Eve. 2010