Eye terrorist was given the chance to leave the

Eye in the sky portrays a hard examination in the moral of modern weaponry, the lethal necessities of anti-terrorist operations, the intelligence capacities of advanced technological surveillance techniques, and the tensions between political vacillation and military decision-making. Colonel Katherine Powell, a UK-based military officer in command was put in charge of a top-secret drone operation to capture terrorists in Kenya that she had been after for years. So after tracking the whereabouts of the terrorist, the colonel made it her top priority to capture them at any cost necessary. However, soon after the mission changes and became an operation to kill as the surveillance device revealed that the terrorists that she seeks to capture were going on another terrorist attack as they were seen strapping on explosives vest. Which lead her to order a drone strike after referring up. Because she finds that if the terrorist was given the chance to leave the there would be a deadly attack. And the fact that she was after them for years, made her more desperate to do everything she could to ensure they were stopped from carrying out another attack. However, when the mission changes it leads to a conflict conversation between the British and U.S and turned into an international debate. And became more complicated when the little was girl selling bread in the kill zone. The British officials had a totally different view from the American that was more focused on stopping a terrorist attack that could kill 80 people but the British were more thinking of public perceptions, which is a political way of looking at a situation like that. Because their conscience gets in the way to properly assess and take charge of a situation. Showing when An “I didn’t come to witness an assassination I came to witness a capture”. I get her point, she’s but if she wouldn’t be thinking like that if she looks at the bigger picture. The British want to avoid propaganda the Colonel Powel want to save as much life as possible, which I think is a legitimate reason for wanting to carry out a drone strike to put the enemy down. However, when she went to the soldier to ask about the CDE accuracy I don’t think that was legitimate, and when she was going to order the drone strike without the other parties involves. In addition, colonel Powel actions were legitimate in the way she strategizes. She did not break the laws after, she went to lieutenant General frank Benson who gives her the go-ahead to launch a kill mission but that still made it difficult because she still had to go through other channels especially when Steve watts stall the operation. The fact that Colonel Powel had to “refer up” to so many officials shows that she could’ve just order a drone strike by her herself, every one she was supposed to get to approve it did. And therefore in my point of view, it was a legitimate strategy. The strikes possess a moral dilemma due to the fact that the drone can kill innocents and no wants to take the blame, and if both sides kill, it would be that some might argue that no side is better than the other. Angela Northman was very big on this also when she states that evil is still evil. Which raises the lieutenant question of whether or not killing a group of terrorist is the worth it or saving the little girl. “And you would save her and risk killing 80 others”? Angela Northman: “Yes, I would save her and take that risk”. I’d rather that Al Shabaab took 80 lives and was blamed than we take one and were blamed by the local population. You go, “Oh my God.” Also, the legal dilemma with the British foreign secretary who, when asking about the drone strike couldn’t decide because there was an American criticize involve so the question was instantly directed to the American secretary who in an instant gives consent. While stating that: “being an American citizen does not protect a terrorist”. The legal and moral dilemma could also be seen when George Matherson imply that “if they kill 80 people, we win the propaganda war. If we kill one child, they do”. George Matherson explains how when fighting the propaganda war, it’s often unfair. He goes on to say, “While the enemy can kill dozens, should the good guys kill one child, they instantly lose”. He’s looking at how it will play out in the news. Not a good reason not to prevent an attack that could kill many more others including other children, although it could be argued that the military officers and generals have no conscience but at the same time there’s too much at stake can’t put the abandoned the mission because of a collateral damage issue, I think its safe to say that with war there will always be some form of collateral damage. I feel like watching the movie it’s easy to feel sorry for the little girl but on the other hand if the terrorist leaves more people would’ve died. Which raises the question of whether the American drone technology that is aided the British government, can go after its own citizens if those citizens are plotting an act of terrorism within the borders of a friendly country. Where the general “Citizenship does not protect a terrorist”. The politicians and the officers have totally different views on this as the Politicians are thinking about how they can stay away from public scrutiny while the officers are looking to see the best scenario that will result in fewer lives lost. The fact they are faced with difficult choices no one wanted to be responsible, but at the same, they know that a decision as to be made but no one wants to make it, which can be a problem when it’s a life or death situation. Such as balancing the impact that is likely to result from a small but significant loss with that of a large and potentially greater catastrophe knowing that you can stop a terrorist attack or save an innocent girl life pose a difficult decision in any case as the responsibility is left on you. As in the politician’s case they didn’t want propaganda of killing a child, as it would mean that they have to live with these consequences. Also the facts they don’t know if they are making the right call.On the other hand, I’m sure it could be argued that the soldier had one job and he should’ve just follow his orders from his superior because he’s just pressing one button, just like playing a video game but looking at the channels that the colonel Powel had to go through to get the go ahead to use drone strike it shows that drone warfare is a much more complicated task and there are some guidelines that you have to follow in order to get it approve, for example, there had to be an estimate of how much collateral damage, which before, launching the strike, the guidelines has to show that the collateral damage would be zero. Which is why when Watts got the go-ahead to strike he disobey and ask that the CDE be run as he will not fire unless it is run. Stating that “I am the pilot of this ship and I have a right to ask for the CDE to be run again”. As a soldier he knows that pressing that button, he will be responsible for an innocent girls life. Which poses a moral dilemma; and showed that when it comes to drone warfare it’s pretty different from being on the ground making contact with the enemy. With drone warfare, you can be miles away and create destruction in a separate country.  For example, Colonel Frank Benson, watch from a separate situation room, eight locations seven which are a thousand miles from the site. I also think the fact that the drone can launch from miles away undermines sovereign borders. Watts had the toughest jobs because he’s the one pressing the button while looking down on the targeted site. Nonetheless, if you’re a soldier you should carry out your duties to prevent a more massive attack from happening. But at the same time, a drone can kill many innocents. So it’s like trying to stop evil while you are doing evil also soldiers look at the fact that if they strike they will be responsible for innocent civilians lives in a matter of minutes while they are safe in another country.  Drone pilots have lives in their hand as was seen in the film. And once you’re a soldier you’re looking to save lives not take them. The pilot views the little girl as innocent where he didn’t think that she should be part of the collateral damage, due to the fact that she’s innocent and did not deserve to die in the crossfire. But given the situation, if you’re a soldier given the order to stop a terrorist’s attack from happening should be a go. On the other hand, the chain of commands are only sitting in their offices and giving orders, they are not the ones actually carrying out the mission that may or may not kill innocent civilians. So looking at the pilot’s view where he let his emotions hinder him from doing his job is understandable as shooting a drone out of a plane that may take innocent lives I would assume is one thing but looking down on a kid selling bread is a whole new level of different. Although is actions are sane, I don’t think he was looking at the bigger picture for the reason that if the terrorist had left the house in the time he was challenging Colonel Powel to run the CDE over, It would have lead to a lot more innocent little girl’s lives to be taken thus putting the mission in jeopardy. Which I’m sure wouldn’t sit well with the pilots because now they would’ve to regret the fact that they had the chance to attack and prevent so many lives from being taken but only save one.  Watching the film it’s really clear that a drone