In the last decade of war, technology has made its mark with the increase in drone operations. This has caused much controversy because many of the drone attacks have caused mass collateral damage — that is, death to innocent civilians. Recently the question has risen whether the president of the United States may authorize a drone attack against an American citizen while on U.S. soil if they are not an imminent threat. That is, if the government has no reason to believe that the suspect is currently an imminent danger to U.S. citizens, do they have the power to execute them even if they feel that they may be engaged in terrorist activity?

After a near 13-hour filibuster on Capitol Hill, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was given clarity from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the White House’s drone policy. Affectionately known as the “filiblizzard,” this rhetorical delay brought up issues such as constitutional integrity, due process and the rights of a drone target. Holder’s response to the filibuster was delivered in a formal letter on behalf of the White House simply stating, “no.”

An advantage to drones is that they are unmanned and therefore hold no risk to the pilot. A disadvantage is that because there is no potential loss of the pilot’s life, looser strategies are formulated in conducting operations. This gray area usually results in collateral damage: innocent casualties. Collateral damage is a harsh reality of war but precise orchestration can greatly reduce loss of life.

The controversy over drones is nothing new. Since the War on Terror began, drone attacks have increased significantly. The number of deaths has increased accordingly. The problem is that many of the victims — some data shows most of the victims — are collateral damage. Even if few high-value targets are eliminated, is it a victory even if many innocent victims are killed in the process? As one who generally takes the utilitarian view towards the value of life I almost always agree that the greater number should be saved if, in fact, any must be lost. However, in this case there is much more room for strategic adjustment. A drone is a highly advanced technological apparatus. That said, such a resource should be utilized to impact only the targets for which it is designed.

All of this considered, I want to invoke Biola’s new billboard statement: “Think biblically. About everything.” As Christians, should we determine the value of life based on nationality? Citizenship? Enemy? No. The value of life is consistent throughout humanity. Genesis does not narrow God’s image to the Middle East, the West, or Israel. We are all made in the image of God and are all desired to come to know Him. Should the ability to execute on U.S. soil be determined based on the suspect’s citizenship? And should we even have to ask whether life should be taken if not given absolute reason to believe they are going to conduct mass murder? The answer to both questions is “no.” It is unfortunate that it took a historic filibuster to get an answer that should have been easily given long ago.

Missions Conference surrounds us with social awareness which is often troubling. Irresponsible drone activity plays a significant role in this injustice. The United States’ efforts to free the oppressed by way of ministry organizations and our military has been well noted throughout the world. Our defense community serves honorably and effectively. But with this reputation comes a responsibility to adhere to a high standard of moral combat strategy and a high value of life. I encourage the students of Biola University to show the courage reflective of Sen. Rand Paul and take a stance against corrupt governance that conducts heinous operations under the guise of “freedom.”