“It seems like a Fourth Amendment violation,” Trinity history teacher Andrew Coverdale said. Coverdale refers to unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAV drones, which were used in precision strikes against United States citizens overseas. Samir Khan, Anwar al-Awlaki, and al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, were killed by separate drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011. All three were American-born citizens. Should American citizens — among them Khan, al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman and all other American citizens killed in drone strikes — be protected from such attacks under the Constitution? The Fourth Amendment reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul posed a question to Arizona Senator John McCain, coincidentally in the fall of 2011, asking, “Under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?” McCain answered, “I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.” The National Defense Authoritative Act, or Senate Bill 1867, breaks the Fourth Amendment with indefinite detainment. Some may see this act as justified after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, but does this justify the direct assassination of American citizens without trial? “Some Fourth Amendment slopes have become slippery,” Coverdale said. “If they were here for the kinds of searches we would do in the U.S., we would need probable cause. I don’t think the drones have gone through the paperwork for a warrant.” Trinity theology teacher Scott Holzknecht said, “I personally am not in favor of military-style drones. I take the hard line on Jesus’ teachings surrounding compassion, violence and love of enemies. I think murder and killing are always, always, always wrong.” While these strikes occurred in 2011, they are just now coming to light because on Feb. 7, 2013, a 16-page memo was released by the Justice Department. Coverdale expressed some trust in the government: “I’m sure they have good reasons for national security, for benefit of the doubt.” The document, titled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qaida or an Associated Force,” states that an American citizen, born or naturalized, would be killed justly without trial if said citizen is “a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force of al-Qa’ida.” Holzknecht still finds these strikes immoral. He said, “These killings are not in self-defense. They are being used to kill people, without warning, who may or may not be planning to attack someone else. They are being used to kill someone because of their thoughts, values, ideas and what they might do. That is not self-defense. “Specific to our current situation, we Americans know extremely little about who is being targeted by these drones. It’s all highly classified. That’s a violation of our social justice, which demands that people be active participants in the decisions that are carried out in our name. This level of secrecy destroys a nation’s ability to govern itself. It centralizes too much power into the hands of too few.” According to CNN reporter Pam Benson, the document isn’t even an official government document, but a policy paper. This apparent disregard for the Constitution may be well intentioned, but is it in opposition to the foundation of the United States? “Presidents that we consider great have stepped off of the Constitution in times of war,” Coverdale said. “Roosevelt, Lincoln and FDR. There is precedent, but it scares me.” Holzknecht offers other ways of dealing with “terrorists,” including diplomacy, economic sanctions, creation of healthier and sustainable communities, as well as technological sabotage. Nevertheless, a line has been crossed in his eyes. ” Using drones for intelligence gathering is one thing,” he said, “killing is immoral, if not illegal. I haven’t even mentioned the fact that we are often flying these (drones) over other sovereign nations. What if Germany sent drones over American soil to kill neo-Nazis they thought were going to stage a rebellion in Germany? Wouldn’t the U.S. have the right to say, ‘This isn’t your country. Stay out?’ Other countries are saying the same to the U.S., but we violate their sovereignty with these drones.” Coverdale agreed, saying, “We aren’t garnering goodwill overseas.” While the Catholic Church has no stance on drone use, the catechism for the Church’s “just war” position states: 1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain. 2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. 3. T here must be serious prospects of success. 4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition (CCC 2309). Holzknecht said in reference to these guidelines, “Drones do not fit as part of a just war because they are not used in defense. They are not being used as our country is being attacked and as a way to defend ourselves.” Parallels have been drawn between the terms “communist” in the era of Joseph McCarthy and “terrorist” today, where the words are used to incite fear and anger in the American public. Coverdale said, “I think the potential is there, but it has not been taken to the same extent.” With a bill like the NDAA and the Patriot Act, it may appear that privacy of the public is being taken away in the name of defense against terrorism, but Holzknecht said some of our transparency is our own fault. He said, “The line between personal and private is vanishing. Social media, reality TV, etc., have made it hard to distinguish between what is private and what is public. I think it’s unhealthy and unwise to have as much personal business publicly known as currently happens in the U.S. today.”