LEGALITY, ETHICALITY, AND EFFECTIVENESS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENHANCED INTERROGATION AND DRONE WARFARE IN U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY

Abstract

This thesis asks whether two major U.S. counterterrorism practices—enhanced interrogation techniques and drone-enabled targeted killings—were legal, ethical, and effective, and what lessons they offer for future national security policy. Using a comparative case study design, it analyzes each practice through a three-part framework grounded in domestic and international law, moral philosophy, operational research, and declassified government sources. The study finds that enhanced interrogation constituted torture, violated legal and ethical standards, and failed to yield reliable intelligence, while drone strikes, though not inherently unlawful, often operated within ambiguous legal boundaries, caused civilian harm, and produced mixed strategic outcomes. The research concludes that both programs suffered from secrecy, inadequate oversight, and legal reinterpretation that weakened democratic accountability and undermined long-term U.S. interests. It recommends strengthening transparency, limiting CIA involvement in lethal operations, institutionalizing independent oversight and after-action review, enhancing mental-health support for drone operators, and applying a legality-ethicality-effectiveness framework to future counterterrorism initiatives.