The Drone Awareness Project, a series of events held by Georgetown University Amnesty International and the Georgetown School of Foreign Service’s Asian Studies Program, which focused on the ethical issues surrounding drone usage, concluded with a lecture and discussion entitled “Drone Dialogues: A Conversation with Ambassador Mark Lagon” on Tuesday.

Lagon is the current Global Politics and Security Chair at Georgetown University’s Masters of Science in Foreign Service program, and had previously directed the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons at the U.S. Department of State.

Lagon spoke in a small Intercultural Center conference room filled with Georgetown students, Asian Studies faculty and State Department officials interested in the ethical questions of U.S. drone use in Asia.

After offering an academic framework of war theory, Logan delved into the ethics of drone deployment. Main topics included the decision-making process behind U.S. drone strikes, the goal of strikes, the dehumanizing effects of drones on the battlefield, national and international legal implications of drone use, issues of transparency and the loss of civilian life.

Lagon repeatedly asked, “Is this a question of ethics, law or politics?” The answer to this question fluctuated as participants of different backgrounds entered the discussion.

A member of the State Department brought up the political question of drones’ possible violation of national sovereignty, especially in the case of American targeting of terrorists in Pakistan.

“Pakistanis want us to use these drones, and some of those who are being targeted are courtesy killings; they’re not people who are high priorities in the United States counterterrorism policy, but in fact, high priorities for Pakistanis. It’s probably unfair to flatly say the United States is willfully violating sovereignty,” Lagon said.

Georgetown Law student Naresh Lall (LAW ’15) focused on the legality of drones in international humanitarian law and the questionable compliance of U.S. signature strikes with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Lagon’s question of reality versus perception also became a focal point of discussion.

“If it’s different from the reality, [is] a perception of drones something that is harmful to a so-called winning of hearts and minds?” Lagon said. “In short, are you creating more terrorists than you’re eliminating? … Are we squandering soft power in the United States because of problems of perception?”

MSFS Assistant Director of External Outreach Hartwig Zakin (MSFS ’07) addressed domestic public perception of American drone use and apathy about the drone issue in the United States in the wake of the war in Iraq.

“We don’t seem to have this conversation at all on the homefront. You have perception externally on the use of drones buzzing overhead in foreign countries, but why are we not talking about drone usage [here]?” Zakin said.

As the Drone Awareness Project draws to a close, the conversation has broadened. Still, questions of public perception remain at the fore of this non-transparent policy.

“It is the responsibility of citizens to ask about how their country uses force. And if you don’t declare war and if you don’t put boots on the ground, then you don’t have troops in theater, then it is easier to avoid public condemnation and criticism,” Lagon said.