Student 1

Student Name
76-101
Professor Mennies
Date
Word Count: 2,341 (including section headings)
Death From Above: Leaders Using Violence on Their Subjects
Imagine you are on a highway making your daily commute to work or school. It is no
different than any other normal day; the sun is just cresting over the horizon as you are driving
along, chuckling to yourself, as you hear the radio host crack a joke about your leaders in
Washington. Just as youre about to settle your eyes back on the road, something catches your
eye. You see a streak across the sky, then a bright flash of light, followed by an ear-shattering
blast. Blindly, you swerve off the road and come to a skidding halt next to the obliterated,
smoking remnants of the white Honda Civic that was just ahead of you on the highway.
Background
The MQ-9 Reaper drone is the premier unmanned aircraft system of the United States Air
Force. The remotely piloted aircraft is capable of using laser-guided bombs and Hellfire missiles
to autonomously execute the kill chain (find, fix, track, target, execute, and assess) against high
value, fleeting, and time sensitive targets (MQ-9 Reaper). In other words, these drones give the
U.S. government the capability to kill anyone, such as the suspected terrorist in the white car,
anywhere in the world, at any time. This fact should rightfully strike fear into the hearts of antiUnited States terrorists across the earth; however, it is also causing fright among U.S. citizens as
well. Recently, it was brought to the attention of the American people that there was a possibility
that the government could use drones to kill to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. According to a news

Student 2
article from CNN.com, this would only be if the government believed that the person was a
credible threat to the nation (Frieden). However, this obviously raises several questions about
the power that President Obama has over the country, and about how leaders in general should
use violence against those whom they are leading.
Several different respectable authors have discussed this aspect of the relationship of
leadership and violence in their scholarly works. Most of these leadership experts fall on one of
two sides of the argument; they either believe that it is acceptable or unacceptable for leaders to
use violence against their subjects. Each author gives his or her own different reasons for making
their respective arguments, but in the end, they make very similar points that can be positioned
together to argue for one side of the question. In this instance, the non-violence camp has more
support and makes a much stronger case for their side of the overall argument. Leaders do not
have the right to use any acts of violence on their citizens without due process of law. In
addition, it is in the leaders best personal interest to refrain from being violent toward his/her
people. With recent technological advances, such as unmanned drones, the world is becoming a
more dangerous place. A powerful leader now has the capability to very quickly and
autonomously kill thousands of people. This argument is of paramount importance to everyone
around the world. If leaders believe they can kill people, especially their own citizens, without
any retribution, no one is safe no matter where they live.
The Peaceful Group
In book two of famous Italian writer Ciceros work, On Obligations, the statement is
made that of all the ways a leader can be viewed by his people none is more calculated to secure
and to retain influence than winning affection, and none is more repugnant than being feared
(Cicero 61). Cicero says that acting with goodwill and generosity will result in receiving

Student 3
affection (61). Conversely, it can be assumed that the opposite (fear) will result when a leader
acts with malice and violence toward his subjects. Although Cicero lived hundreds of years ago,
these same principals still hold true today. He goes on to say:
Freedom which has been discontinued has a fiercer bite than when it has been
maintained. Let us therefore embrace the policy which extends most widely, and which
is most efficacious in promoting not merely our safety, but also our resources and our
power: fear must be banished, and affection must be preserved, for in this way we shall
most easily fulfill our aspirations both in private and public affairs (62).
This quote relates directly to the national drone issue. Right now, the United States is considered
a free country. If the government were to make a move against its citizens, some of that freedom
would be taken away and may in turn negatively affect those in power. Cicero also puts a great
emphasis on trust between a leader and his subjects. If the government believes it can kill
American citizens without warning and without due process of law, the citizens will have no trust
in the government.
Benjamin Barber, author of Command Performance, is another leadership expert that
sides with Cicero in this debate. Barbers work is centered around the idea that in order for
democracy to work effectively, the people need to provide the leader with a consensus or
common direction to move in. Without a united purpose, the leader does not know how to lead
the nation. Through this idea and his views on assassination, Barber implicitly speaks out
against leaders using violence, especially against their own people. Likewise, Heather Gautney,
a writer for the Washington Post, also speaks out against leaders using violence. In her article
What is Occupy Wall Street? The History of Leaderless Movements, she talks of the leaderless
movement Occupy Wall Street, a movement in which the decisions are made in an entirely

Student 4
democratic way, and where in essence, everyone is a leader. In this movement, no one person
holds the majority of the power; therefore, it is very difficult for anyone to control the organized
use of violence. The Occupy movement is designed to be peaceful and operate with integrity
(Gautney 2). Gautney also implicitly speaks out against violence by supporting a movement that
lacks any violent aspects.
The last expert to be discussed on this side of the violence and leadership argument is
Max Weber, author of the famous article Politics as a Vocation. In his work, Weber focuses a
lot on the relationship between leadership and ethics and how violence plays into that
connection. Weber maintains that a good leader is one who uses violence in an ethical manner.
He notes that violence is necessary in some cases, especially when initially founding the state;
however, he asserts that from then on the best policy is try to avoid being violent and acting with
good ethics in mind. He delves deeply into the ethics of leadership and concludes that the ends
do not necessarily justify the means of attaining a goal. This can be related to the drone situation
in the sense that the government may not be justified in killing a U.S. citizen without due process
to remove a potential national threat.
Lets Be Violent: The Naysayers
Despite the large volume of worthy support on the side of leaders being peaceful toward
their citizens, there are some people who believe that it is acceptable for a leader to be violent or
repressive. One of these dissenting writers is the 16th century Italian Niccol Machiavelli, author
of the famous book The Prince. Machiavelli takes an extreme approach to violence and
leadership. Like Weber, he believes that some violence is necessary to initially form the state
and acquire control; however, this is where the similarities end. Weber focuses significantly on
the ethics of leadership, whereas Machiavelli does not take any ethics into consideration. He

Student 5
asserts that from a rulers perspective in regards to the people, it is much safer to be feared than
to loved (59). He also says that whether men bear affection depends on themselves, but
whether they are afraid will depend on what the ruler does (60). In other words, if the ruler is
harsh, violent, and repressive the people will fear him. As a result, Machiavelli somewhat
implicitly states that it is ok for leaders to be violent toward their people.
Sometimes when a leader becomes too violent or oppressive, those under the leaders
control will tend to rise up and fight against the tyranny. Zaryab Iqbal and Christopher Zorn,
researchers from the University of South Carolina, delved deeply into this fascinating idea of
citizens using violence against their own leaders in their work Sic Semper Tyrannis. Iqbal &
Zorn focus on assassination, which they define as killing for political reasons: whether the
target is a private individual or a public figure, the motives of the assassin are political in nature,
rather than stemming from malice against the person of the victim (Iqbal 490). Assassination is
an important phenomenon because of its causes. Iqbal & Zorn assert that a violent leader is less
likely to be assassinated; their data suggest that powerful, repressive leaders may create or
contribute to a political culture which makes their risk of assassination lower (499). Therefore,
the data that Iqbal & Zorn present suggest that personally for a leader it is better to be violent.
Can This Really Happen?
Regardless of whether or not leaders should be violent toward their people, some people
may be asking the question of whether or not a leader could act in this way in the United States.
The U.S. is a democracy, which in the minds of many should make it much more difficult for a
leader to repress and act violently toward the citizens. However, political science researchers
Partick Regan and Errol Henderson, of Binghamton University and Wayne State University
respectively, disagree. The focus of their article "Democracy, Threats and Political Repression in

Student 6
Developing Countries: Are Democracies Internally Less Violent?" is whether or not violent
repression can occur or is more likely to occur in democracies as opposed to other forms of
government. Their research concluded that repression is most definitely possible in democracies
and the amount of repression experienced is directly related to the level of threat the government
is experiencing from the people. Threat is a better determining factor for violent repression than
regime type (Regan 130). They also stated that in the face of political decay political elites are
more likely to pursue repression in order to provide stability for their regime (131). Many
people today would argue that the United States is currently experiencing some form of this
political decay. It has become a 2-party system in which more time is spent arguing over which
side has the better political opinions than actually working together to achieve advancement. For
this reason, according to Regan and Henderson, we as citizens of the United States are
susceptible to violent repression by our government.
Should Drones Be Used?
It has been shown that the U.S. is susceptible to violent repression. In this time period,
this type of violent repression could come in many forms with the various technological weapons
available. Drones are just one avenue of this, but it does not mean that this discussion is not of
vital importance. The authors whose views were analyzed earlier primarily support their
arguments with two main things in mind: the affect this type of violence will have on the leader
and the ethical/long run affect this type of violence would have on a nation. The authors on the
pro-violence side of this argument focus mainly on the first consideration, the welfare of the
leader. While it is important for a leader to be successful while leading a nation, the welfare of
the nation must absolutely come before that of the leader. While being violent toward the people
may increase a leaders power and ability to maintain that power, it does nothing but decrease the

Student 7
well-being of the citizens. It is a leaders job to lead the people and uplift them, not push down
in the name of extending the length of the leaders reign. In addition, Weber and Cicero would
refute any claims for violent leadership by Iqbal and Zorn or Machiavelli by arguing that the
affection of the people is most important. The U.S. government cannot leave the use of drones
on U.S. citizens a possibility and not expect decrease affection and cause fear among the people.
The nature of a drone strike means that it must occur before due process of law can be carried
out. An innocent man on his commute to work could be killed because our government
unlawfully and unrightfully convicted him of being a terroristic threat. Therefore, the use of
drones on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States
in addition to the other arguments that have been laid out. Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky put
it well when he said No one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt of an individual and
to charge an individual. It goes against everything we fundamentally believe in our country
(Pergram 1). In addition, it is very evident that the American public agrees with Paul. At the end
of March, a Gallup poll reported that seventy-nine percent of Americans agreed with Paul in
saying that drones should not be used against Americans on American soil (Blake). If the
government needs a unified voice to lead the country, as Barber says, they have it right there.
Conclusion
It is time that we as Americans stand up against this unchanging government and show
the politicians that we do indeed have a voice. America is facing a vital time in the nations
history. The way the citizens respond to this drone crisis may forever shape the future. The
government should think it can use lethal force of any kind against its citizens. If we do not react
and allow this ever-growing partisan government to slowly take over every aspect of our lives,
the freedom as we know it may no longer exist. Everything that thousands of great warriors have

Student 8
given their lives for will be for naught, because we as citizens have failed to do our job and hold
up our end of the bargain. We cannot allow this to happen.

Student 9
Works Cited
Barber, Benjamin. Command Performance. Harpers Magazine. April 1975: 1-5. Print.
Blake, Aaron. "Poll Shows Huge Support for Rand Pauls Filibuster Stance on Drone
Attacks." The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company, 25 Mar. 2013. Web. 13
Apr. 2013.
Cicero. Book 2. On Obligations. Trans. P. G. Walsh. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. 55-85. Print.
Frieden, Terry. "Holder Does Not Rule out Drone Strike Scenario in U.S." CNN Politics. Cable
News Network, 06 Mar. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.
Gautney, Heather. What is Occupy Wall Street? The History of Leaderless Movements. The
Washington Post. 10 Oct. 2011. washingtonpost.com. Web.
Iqbal, Zaryab and Christopher Zorn. Sic Semper Tyrannis? Power, Repression, and
Assassination since the Second World War. The Journal of Politics. 68.3. Aug. 2006:
489-501. Jstor.org. Web.
Machiavelli, Niccol. The Prince. Eds. Quentin Skinner and Russell Price. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1988. Print.
"MQ-9 Reaper." The Official Website of the U.S. Air Force. N.p., 5 Jan. 2012. Web. 13 Apr.
2013.
Regan, Patrick M., and Errol A. Henderson. "Democracy, Threats and Political Repression in
Developing Countries: Are Democracies Internally Less Violent?" Third World
Quarterly 23.1 (2002): 119-36. Print.
Weber, Max. Politics as a Vocation. [Excerpts] From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. 1946.
Trans. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford UP, 1958. 77-128. Print.

Student 10
Contribution Rubric

Not enough to
assess

Needs a lot of work

(4-6 points)

(0-3 points)

Content, Focus, and Development (90 points)

The paper is an argument that addresses a research question.
The paper is focused on an issue that is carefully defined in
the introduction/preview.
The paper has a clear thesis that focuses the essay by stating a
primary claim and its significance or, whats at stake.
All information used to develop the thesis is absolutely
relevant to the thesis.
The paper uses information from at least SIX credible textual
sources (see assignment guidelines).
The paper contextualizes the argument within already
existing perspectives.
The paper uses sufficient evidence to develop its
generalizations (e.g., details, examples, paraphrases and
quotes from the text).
The paper makes central assumptions explicit for the reader.
The paper acknowledges alternative perspectives and refutes
them.
Structure, Coherence, and Language (100 points)
The paper is structured with a thesis and a preview of the
major points.
The paper adheres to the structure laid out in the introductory
preview.
Paragraphs and ideas are organized so that their order
progresses logically.
Paragraphs are structured by claims that either present
premises for the papers argument or develop major
premises of the argument.
There are transitions connecting paragraphs and sentences to
each other and to the thesis/introduction.
There are subheadings that guide the readers navigation and
comprehension of the essay.

Fair, but
could be
improved
(7-8 points)

Well done
(9-10
points)

Student 11
The paper uses language consistently to show explicit
connections between the thesis and other points in the paper.
Attention has been paid to issues of mechanics and
grammar for standard written English. There are few, if any,
errors; and no error causes difficulty for the readers
comprehension.
Vocabulary and style are appropriate for academic writing.
The paper follows the MLA style guide and has a Works
Cited page and correct in-text parenthetical documentation.
Revision Process (20 points)
The rough draft includes a revision plan and makes a
complete effort to address all major aspects of the assignment.
The paper shows evidence of revision, based on the writers
revision plan, instructors feedback, and peer review.
Abstract (10 points)

Total Points [

]/220