A recent Department of Justice memo reveals that high-level officials under the Obama administration may be allowed to order the drone killings of senior operational leaders of Al Qaeda or any associated force, without the evidence that the force is in fact actively plotting against the United States. The memo also states that the U.S. would be able to kill a U.S. citizen overseas if the person involved is an imminent threat, and the targeted operation is conducted with the principles of war. The paper further suggests that such decisions would not be subject to judicial review.

If they're so effective, why limit drone strikes to foreign nationals? (U.S. Pacific Air Forces)

Watchdog groups and members of Congress have demanded the administration release internal documents providing legal justifications for drone strikes, especially now that the potential targets could be American citizens.

But if the Obama administration really believes that it can combat terrorism and strengthen national security by using drones, then why must they limit the strikes to foreign nationals? Why not the U.S. citizens overseas who may be actively scheming against their own country?

Some groups remain staunchly opposed. Hina Shamsi, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, stated that the memo was “profoundly disturbing,” providing for “a stunning overreach of executive authority” which allows Americans to be killed from afar without any sort of judicial oversight.

Obama’s administration, however, continues to favor the use of drone technology more and more, as it reduces the need for American troops to be deployed in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, thereby reducing the risk of causalities. The drone strikes run like computer games, in which desk pilots sit in air conditioned bunkers, take out a few targets and return home to their families.

While the basic justification for the use of drones is the threat of terrorism, current terrorism is largely a response to imperialistic and interventionist foreign policy. Drone attacks are undeniably one of the most perilous post-modernist methods of constant intervention.

President Obama has said that drone strikes have killed very few civilians, making it arduous to get exact numbers of the civilian death toll. However, a study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute estimates that as many as 98 percent of drone strike casualties are civilians, or 49 civilians killed for every one terrorist.

These reports call into question the goals of protecting the U.S. and fighting terrorism that the Obama administration uses as justification for drone strikes. If a drone kills an actual terrorist but leaves many more innocent people injured or dead, the attack undoubtedly creates more enemies than it eliminates.

But if the United States government really does subscribe to its own irrationality of battling terrorism by using drones, then there is no reason why American citizens cannot and should not be targeted. The United Nations Human Rights Declaration has legitimacy almost everywhere in the world and is championed by American politicians who declare that every human being is born free, is equal in dignity and rights and has the right to life and security.

If, by expanding the drone program, the United States government really thinks that it can dwarf anti-American sentiment, then why only target Afghan / Pakistani Pashtuns or the Yemeni Al Qaeda, and not American citizens who may be equally involved in plotting against their own country? After all, we in the United States are taught not to discriminate on the basis of sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Only by allowing American citizens as targets has the United States confirmed its seriousness in eradicating the already dwindling Al Qaeda, Taliban and other anti-American forces.

The necessary national security move would have been to halt drone strikes long time ago, in the hopes of preventing civilian deaths and a burgeoning feeling of enmity towards the country. But maybe now that the United States’ own citizens can be targeted without judicial review, there is a chance for a more public outburst to take place against these pernicious attacks.

Reach Contributor Naina Sethi here.