Senate Droning On

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jabbadabbado, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    How are you going to feel when that same logic is used to kill people in the US, because they are deemed to be interacting with groups that are viewed as threats to other countries? And then, what about when you happen to be near someone who's doing that, and there ends up being collateral damage from those sorts of attacks? Or the intel was wrong?
  2. beezel26 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2003
    star 7
    I have no moral qualms about the sin eaters that make the decisions on who dies from the drone strikes.
  3. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    I am not sure. See, I have not watched something like 99% of The Clone Wars cartoon but I have curiosities about it and feel silly asking questions about it since I know so little. This drone thing is the same way. There appears to be so much information out there but none of it concise so I ask and get confrontation rather than answers.
  4. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Ehhh...I'm going to say that hanging out with terrorists probably isn't very smart if you don't want to be mistaken for a terrorist yourself. I'd compare it to pointing a toy gun at a police officer...what the hell is he supposed to think when he sees you?
    VadersLaMent and Summer Dreamer like this.
  5. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    In a country like Pakistan, how do you know who is a terrorist and who is just a baker or a taxi driver? It's not like terrorists walk around with signs. That is the fundamental problem with any extra- judicial assassination, you just don't really know who you are killing. Dropping bombs on suspected terrorists, so labelled by some team of analysts deep in the bowels of the corridors of Langley, whether via manned aircraft or drone, is a process driven by intelligence. We all know the limitations and inherent failing of the intelligence gathering process - see for example the Iraq War. Dropping bombs on 'suspects' is also a violation of fundamental international human rights and is a war crime.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Feb 5, 2013
    Adam of Nuchtern and Darth Guy like this.
  6. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Well then hopefully the intelligence people are doing their job right...and if not then someone needs to blow the whistle.
  7. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    100 years from now the concept of privacy will be something people read about in history books. It's inevitable with the technology we have now.

    As for using drones to blow up suspected terrorists... I've got no problem. Much cleaner than using fighter pilots or spec ops teams to kill the guy.
    Last edited by GenAntilles, Feb 5, 2013
  8. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    True, but even if the intelligence people are doing their jobs right, then intelligence is really just data, which is then analysed to extract meaningful information, which is then passed on and up the chain so that an educated guess can be made regarding what the data mean. The whole intelligence process should never provide the foundation for an assassination. Ever.

    @GenAntilles - You don't have a problem with suspects being assassinated? Really?
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Feb 5, 2013
  9. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    This presupposes that extrajudicial assassination of suspected terrorists is an acceptable course of action.
  10. _Catherine_ Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 16, 2007
    star 4
    Not funny. - SuperWatto
    Last edited by SuperWatto, Feb 6, 2013
  11. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Nope. We've been doing it for years. It's no different than what we've don in every other war, other than now we don't have to put human lives at risk. And I'd say these terrorists are 'suspects' as much as any enemy soldier is a 'suspect'.

    I've already accepted it as an acceptable course of action. Since when has killing the enemy in warfare been considered 'extrajudicial assassination'? We did it in every war in American history.

    We've done it to tons of white people too. In fact probably a lot more white people.
    Last edited by SuperWatto, Feb 6, 2013
  12. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Well I'm gobsmacked. Ordinarily, I'd be obligated to waste some of my workday frantically typing out a response to this, but in this case, I feel compelled to just leave it there and hope that yours isn't the prevailing view in the US.
  13. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Well given how we've handled the war... a lot of Americans would've preferred a drone war to what we ended up with in Afghanistan and Iraq. The result is the same, dead terrorists, but the drone option limits loss of American lives.

    Obviously it's more complicated than that, but for a lot of Americans asking them if they would rather have robots kill the same people we would have soldiers go kill... they'll rather use the robots.
    Last edited by GenAntilles, Feb 5, 2013
  14. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Even though I'm quoting you for a place to start, I'm making a more general response here. What's so funny to me is that this exact same debate was had back when Bush was President. Take someone like David Hicks, or John Walker Lindh. Bush's mistake was actually capturing them and allowing them to be used as pawns in the media, when both of these men could have just been shot to death in their respective areas, and no one would have cared. The hypocrisy of groups like Amnesty International (which actually does good work as long as it isn't being used as a political party tool) is that it doesn't really care about the actions themselves-scores of faceless Pakistanis could be killed by strikes without a peep-until the target is one with "high face" in the media. I've said it before and I'll say it again, but first term Obama was the best Bush out of any of the Bush Presidents. 2nd term Obama seems to have gone a bit off the deep end, but that's for a different discussion. But to answer your question, I think the prevailing view is that people don't care, as long as the action isn't splashed on the front page.

    Remember, the Obama "memo" for targeted strikes is actually 16 pages long, and most telling is that it comes from the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense, so there is no authority directly tied to the military, it all sits with the executive. For all the concerns outlined in this thread, the actual memo is worse, probably beyond anyone here's wildest dreams. If anyone wants a sobering read, here's the document:

    HERE

    Basically, the administration says that the concept of national self defense legally trumps any other status. Here's one of the controlling factors:

    Were the target of a lethal operation a US Citizen who may have rights under the Due Process Clause and the Fourth Amendment, that individual's citizenship would not immunize him from a lethal operation. One really has to love the sanitized versions of concepts. It's not assassination, it's "not being immunized from lethal operations...."

    Legally, a targeted strike on intelligence targets isn't a war crime, because intelligence targets aren't protected by any treaty for the laws of war. As the Obama-memo also suggests, although it doesn't specifically say either way, the administration is also taking the position that as long as an authorized individual is the one who is targeted, allowances would be made for those caught in the attack. So if the administration wants to kill a high value terrorist, but also takes out 5 members of their family, it's the family's fault for being in the same area as the terrorist, and would be legally authorized by the administration.
  15. A Chorus of Disapproval New Films Riot Deterrent

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2003
    star 7
    Jon Stewart had a lovely 8-minute long diatribe shredding the fraud in office over the drone memo. For all of the legitimate info he jammed into the segment, his closing summed it up best: "We don’t mind you knowing about **** we do once we don’t do it anymore. We’re happy to share irrelevant information with the public. We told you we were going to be transparent, we just didn’t tell you it was going to be about the last guy’s secrets.”
    FRAGWAGON and Rogue_Ten like this.
  16. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Stewart, drone attacks

    I am still not seeing it. You go over to a foreign country and join terrorists and speak with them and even have links to attacks on the U.S. I have zero sympathy for your getting your ass killed.
  17. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Well, I guess our legal principles were pretty phony anyway.
  18. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    How would you feel if the Army rolled into Los Angeles and wiped out the Bloods by shooting everyone suspected of being a member?
    Rogue_Ten likes this.
  19. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    The website http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com attempts to keep track of all the drone attacks. According to their figures, in Pakistan, Obama and Bush have ordered attacks that have killed almost 200 children and between around 450 and 900 civilians, out of somewhere between 2600 and 3500 killed, total. What part of it is there that you have no sympathy for? The hundreds of civilians that Obama has had killed, or the hundreds of children?

    This isn't like there's a war going on here, and there are battle lines people are avoiding, and things of that nature... this is that people anywhere throughout a country we claim to be allied with has to worry about being bombed, at any time, by us. War isn't great, but I fail to see how this is better.

    What we're doing to the Pakistanis is, imo, far worse on the whole than what we're doing to American citizens. But even taking that into mind, I'd also point out that on the same sort of logic here, Israel would be completely justified in killing Obama when he goes and meets with the Palestinians. Or Iran could be completely justified in bombing Obama when he meets with Israel. This idea of bombing people, wherever they are, and whoever they are around, is a dangerous precedent to want to create. That a Nobel Prize winner is considering this a solid policy he takes full responsibility and credit for is fairly disturbing, and I'm sure Bush has been kicking himself the last few years that he never thought of coming up with a policy that if we kill someone, they must be a militant, otherwise would they have been where we had a bomb hit?
    LostOnHoth and Rogue_Ten like this.
  20. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Pretty damned bad but we are not talking about suspects of gangs in our own country we are talking about very out in the open citizens going over seas and joining terrorist groups and engaging in their planning. And that has been my question and point the entire time yet all i am getting are snarky remarks without explanations.
  21. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    Well the explanation is that if someone is committing a crime, then you arrest them. There's no declaration of war against 'terrorism'.

    What about bombing border towns in Mexico to wipe out the drug trade? You are after all, in a War on Drugs.
  22. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    But we can't arrest them! It's like how if a pedophile flees to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.S., we bomb his house.
  23. A Chorus of Disapproval New Films Riot Deterrent

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2003
    star 7
    Poor Roman Polanski... he'll never know what hit him... :(
    Point Given, RC-1991 and Darth Guy like this.
  24. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    A pedophile isn't someone who's about to commit mass murder, so there's no urgency in the matter.
  25. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    What defines "mass murder"? What defines "about to"? What evidence is there to point to this imminent threat? Would this mass murder take place on U.S. soil for the first time in 12 years? What gives the U.S. jurisdiction in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia? Why does this give the Executive authority to bypass any semblance of a court? Why didn't the FBI slaughter all those similar to McVeigh after Oklahoma City? Why did he get his day in court or real oversight? Why do Obama, Holder, Panetta, and others-- who have higher body counts than many of these "terrorists" (see: more than zero)-- deserve to have trials in the fantasy world where they're held accountable for their crimes and the men hiding out in impoverished backwaters do not?
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Feb 7, 2013