Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 07 Feb '13 23:28
    "The American public loves drones." 83% Americans support use of drones against terrorists. Also, the majority of Americans, especially Republicans, support use of drones against American citizens who are terrorists.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72613.html#ixzz2KG69UvEv

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/poll-americans-back-drone-attacks-but-not-on-u-s-citizens-abroad/
  2. 07 Feb '13 23:59
    I do. Drones should not be controversial. When, how, and why we use lethal force you should certainly always be scrutinized. But I don't see how the delivery means from a mechanical standpoint matters.
  3. 08 Feb '13 00:03
    Originally posted by moon1969
    "The American public loves drones." 83% Americans support use of drones against terrorists. Also, the majority of Americans, especially Republicans, support use of drones against American citizens who are terrorists.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72613.html#ixzz2KG69UvEv

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/poll-americans-back-drone-attacks-but-not-on-u-s-citizens-abroad/
    I support use of drones in warfare, but I don't support use of drones as a means of executing people who have not been brought to trial over criminal charges. It is only a small step from there to using them to eliminate political dissidents.
  4. 08 Feb '13 01:04
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I support use of drones in warfare, but I don't support use of drones as a means of executing people who have not been brought to trial over criminal charges. It is only a small step from there to using them to eliminate political dissidents.
    The problem is the lines become blurred in modern conflicts. For example, Taliban fighters are legitimate military targets, but they don't wear uniforms and they often use "neutral" territories as a base of operation. Making things even more complicated they aren't controlled by a central government.
  5. 08 Feb '13 01:14
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    The problem is the lines become blurred in modern conflicts. For example, Taliban fighters are legitimate military targets, but they don't wear uniforms and they often use "neutral" territories as a base of operation. Making things even more complicated they aren't controlled by a central government.
    Yes, I understand that, and that has been somewhat the case even in Vietnam. When they are used to eliminate political undesirables, I think we've crossed another line.
  6. 08 Feb '13 01:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    "The American public loves drones." 83% Americans support use of drones against terrorists. Also, the majority of Americans, especially Republicans, support use of drones against American citizens who are terrorists.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72613.html#ixzz2KG69UvEv

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/poll-americans-back-drone-attacks-but-not-on-u-s-citizens-abroad/
    On 25 September 2012, Finnegan created the thread 'US Drones Terrorize
    Pakistan' in this forum, citing an article of that day in 'The Guardian'.
    I tend to concur with Finnegan's criticisms of US imperialism and militarism.

    Here's another article from 'The Guardian':
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/john-brennan-john-kiriakou-cia?INTCMP=SRCH

    "(John) Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on CIA waterboarding, goes to prison,
    while (John) Brennan, who approved it, is set to lead the agency."
    --Amy Goodman (7 February 2013)

    The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (UK) has estimated that US drone
    strikes have killed at least 2629 people in Pakistan so far.

    If I recall correctly, Moon1969 approved of the 'pre-emptive' nuclear genocide
    of Iran. If a survey were to find that most Americans also would approve of it,
    then would that finding make such a genocide legally and morally justified?
  7. 08 Feb '13 02:00
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    On 25 September 2012, Finnegan created the thread 'US Drones Terrorize
    Pakistan' in this forum, citing an article of that day in 'The Guardian'.
    I tend to concur with Finnegan's criticisms of US imperialism and militarism.

    Here's another article from 'The Guardian':
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/john-brennan-john-kiriakou-cia?I ...[text shortened]... of it,
    then would that finding make such a genocide legally and morally justified?
    Generally, Americans approve of stuff if their party leader does. Democrats genuflect to whatever Obama does, but if George W. Bush did the same thing, they'ld want him impeached. The same is true in reverse.
  8. 08 Feb '13 03:35
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Generally, Americans approve of stuff if their party leader does. Democrats genuflect to whatever Obama does, but if George W. Bush did the same thing, they'ld want him impeached. The same is true in reverse.
    The polling shows more Republicans than Democrats support Obama's use of drones. Check out the links in the original post.
  9. 08 Feb '13 04:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    The polling shows more Republicans than Democrats support Obama's use of drones. Check out the links in the original post.
    Well I know that democrats employ the use of the homeless, the illegals, and the dead in every election, but to say that the GOP favors the use of these drones is just absurd.
  10. 08 Feb '13 05:08
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well I know that democrats employ the use of the homeless, the illegals, and the dead in every election, but to say that the GOP favors the use of these drones is just absurd.
    Scientific polling is absurd?
  11. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    08 Feb '13 06:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by moon1969
    "The American public loves drones." 83% Americans support use of drones against terrorists. Also, the majority of Americans, especially Republicans, support use of drones against American citizens who are terrorists.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72613.html#ixzz2KG69UvEv

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/poll-americans-back-drone-attacks-but-not-on-u-s-citizens-abroad/
    I looked at the article and the write up they have a link to and they do not say what the actual question was. If the question was - as I assume - "Do you think it is acceptable to use a drone to take out terrorist targets?" then the respondent may well assume the terrorists are committing a terrorist act at the time - the question doesn't imply assassination.

    If they asked: "Do you think it is acceptable to use drones to kill people suspected of being terrorists while they are doing their shopping and surrounded by innocent people?" then you'd probably get a different response.

    The write-up only states "use of drones against terrorists" which doesn't really tell me if that was the question - if it was as simple as that then that's no good - these calls are always situational.
  12. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    08 Feb '13 07:51
    Originally posted by moon1969
    "The American public loves drones." 83% Americans support use of drones against terrorists. Also, the majority of Americans, especially Republicans, support use of drones against American citizens who are terrorists.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72613.html#ixzz2KG69UvEv

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/poll-americans-back-drone-attacks-but-not-on-u-s-citizens-abroad/
    What would a day on RHP forums be without some form of passive aggression from Moon1969?

    This pretty much sums it up. And I do not agree with Eugene Robinson every day.

    Assassinations by remote control
    By Eugene Robinson, Published: February 7
    If George W. Bush had told us that the “war on terror” gave him the right to execute a U.S. citizen overseas with a missile fired from a drone aircraft, without due process or judicial review, I’d have gone ballistic. It makes no difference that the president making this chilling claim is Barack Obama. What’s wrong is wrong.

    The moral and ethical questions posed by the advent of drone warfare — which amounts to assassination by remote control — are painfully complex. We had better start working out some answers because, as an administration spokesman told me recently, drone attacks are “the new normal” in the ongoing struggle against terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda.

    But one of the few bright lines we can and should recognize is that in the exceedingly rare instances when a U.S. citizen may be targeted, our government bears a special burden.

    The Obama administration acknowledged as much in a secret Justice Department “white paper” obtained this week by NBC News. The document lays out a legal argument that the president, without oversight, may order a “lethal operation” against a citizen who is known to be a “senior operational leader” of al-Qaeda or an affiliated group.

    This is not an academic question. In 2011, a CIA drone attack in Yemen killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric who had become a leading figure in the terrorist franchise known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Two weeks later, another drone attack killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son.

    Awlaki was believed to have been directly involved in the near-miss “underwear bomber” plot to down a civilian airliner on Christmas Day 2009, as well as the planting of two bombs — fortunately, discovered before they could explode — on Chicago-bound cargo planes in 2010. Perpetrators of several other attacks cited Awlaki’s fiery sermons and, in some cases, his personal messages as their inspiration.

    I shed no tears for him. But as the Justice Department document admits, U.S. citizens have constitutional rights. I am deeply troubled by the notion that the president can unilaterally decide those rights no longer apply.

    The white paper specifies the conditions that must be met before a citizen is targeted for obliteration. Among them is that he or she must be planning an “imminent” terrorist attack. The document then argues for a remarkably elastic definition of imminence — which, you may be surprised to learn, apparently does not mean “in the immediate future.”

    That part is shaky, but I accept that Awlaki was a legitimate target. What I don’t accept is that the president or a “high-level official” gets to make the call without judicial oversight. When the government wants to violate a citizen’s right to privacy with wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance, a judge from a special panel — the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court — has to give approval. Surely there should be at least as much judicial review when the government wants to violate a citizen’s right not to be blown to smithereens.

    This oversight would occur when the decision is made to place a citizen on the “kill list” of targets — meaning there could be no “hot pursuit” scenario in which a drone had a target in its sights but the aircraft’s controllers had to get a judge’s approval before firing. Keep in mind that the question of targeting a citizen would come up only rarely. Also keep in mind that the “drone court,” like the surveillance court, would surely grant almost every government request.

    The practical impact of providing for judicial review in targeting citizens would be almost nil. But doing so would help us establish a conceptual and legal framework for this new, unsettling form of warfare.

    The one thing we know is this: There will be drones.

    No president could become aware that specific enemies are planning attacks against the United States and not take action. This would be an unconscionable dereliction of duty. If the plot is being developed in a place like Yemen or Somalia, what are the options? Order a special forces commando raid, risking American lives? Mount a full-scale invasion? Or send up a flying robot, armed with a missile, and foil the plot by eliminating the plotters?

    As drones become more sophisticated, the range of missions for which they are used will grow. And as the United States demonstrates the military potential of drones, other nations will build their own robot fleets. We need to realize that the future is now.
  13. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    08 Feb '13 10:22 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    As drones become more sophisticated, the range of missions for which they are used will grow. And as the United States demonstrates the military potential of drones, other nations will build their own robot fleets. We need to realize that the future is now.
    I have this distopian vision of the future of a ruined city where soldiers all clad in full body 2 inch thick powered armour fire 200mm shells at each other while the unarmoured civilians they are meant to be protecting are blasted to smithereens in the crossfire.

    With drones the attraction is legal - as I understand it (which is marginally) no one can be held vicariously liable for damage they do. The legal loophole makes using them for counter-insurgency work attractive, also it means they can try the technology out. Politicians get too excited about military technology, they believe their own propaganda and think they can intervene without taking casualties or killing the wrong people.

    They are good for photo-reconnaissance and if you want to degrade air defences in the early stages of a conventional war and a manned attack is too risky. For COIN stuff you want to avoid hitting the wrong target if you're looking to win hearts and minds, in which case having people there is essential because it is easy to make mistakes based on looking through a camera. Insurgents basically can't down fast jets - so there's no real risk to the pilots (except bad luck).
  14. 08 Feb '13 12:42
    Originally posted by moon1969
    "The American public loves drones." 83% Americans support use of drones against terrorists. Also, the majority of Americans, especially Republicans, support use of drones against American citizens who are terrorists.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72613.html#ixzz2KG69UvEv

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/poll-americans-back-drone-attacks-but-not-on-u-s-citizens-abroad/
    They try and make it look like there is a terrorist behind every tree. I bet they will use them for Ron Paul supporters, constitutionalists, firearms owners, and veterans. They are the number one enemy of the new world order. The fact that the US controls Al queda proves it isn't about terrorism. Also consider the laws that have been put in place recently. Wont be long before they can take out a home in the US with them and not even answer for it. They will just say national security.
  15. 08 Feb '13 14:24
    So it is official, 83% of Americans are idiots.

    Due process for Americans is a thing of the past. Any of us are terrorists unless we can prove otherwise and how can you do that when you are dead? Pop goes the weasel!