Drones - its a method - who cares?

[JakeStarkey]

The ethics of drone technology have nothing to do with whether we should be killing jihadists.

 

[Papageorgio]

I find it amusing the Wingnuts and Funditards suddenly love Islamic Terrorists when Obama is the one killing them.

I find it disgusting how nut jobs found the killing of innocent people deplorable and now think it is okay to kill the innocent and even US citizens because Obama or should i say a Democrat is the one killing them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You who don't like the drone war on jihadism better go read the Constitution, because you are flatly and irrevocably wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I find it amusing the Wingnuts and Funditards suddenly love Islamic Terrorists when Obama is the one killing them.

I don't love terrorists, I love rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Son, you have no right to wage war on America.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The only legitimate military target is someone who is actually on the battlefield..."

That is your opinion. Others hold the opinion that in asymmetrical warfare, which oftentimes lacks conventional battlefields, any enemy combatant or enemy leadership or enemy asset is eligible for designation as a target, anytime, any place.

"...which explains why we do not send the military in to clean up Chicago..."

American law prohibits the use of military assets in domestic policing operations on a routine basis, but we are talking about our military engaging asymmetrical warfare enemies overseas, not domestic mischief-makers. Apples and oranges.

"...This boy was not killed on a battlefield..."

True. That is immaterial in an asymmetrical warfare context as it applies to counter-terrorism operations.

"...he was killed saying goodbye to one of his friends on the front porch of a house were he had been staying."

Doesn't matter whether he was at a house or sitting around a campfire or in a cafe or in any of a thousand-and-one other possible locations.

What matters is that our people believed that they were targeting as many as a dozen terrorists and a leader or two when they fired on that position, and that he was hanging-around such folk or on-site at a place where these targets were expected to be at the time.

I very seriously doubt that we decided to waste an $80K missile and the cost of a drone sortie on a 16-year-old kid.

There were almost certainly other problems... real-time intelligence, real-time assessment of the target-site and its occupants, legal authorizations, and other things.

There was fault here... perhaps great fault... but the intentional and focused killing of a 16-year-old seems rather low on the list of possibilities.

 

[dblack]

What do you mean by "asymmetrical warfare"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

asymmetric warfare noun
warfare in which opposing groups or nations have unequal military resources, and the weaker opponent uses unconventional weapons and tactics, as terrorism, to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemy.

Asymmetric warfare | Define Asymmetric warfare at Dictionary.com

9-11 is the most obvious example of asmmetic warfare to Americans.

 

[Kondor3]

asymmetric warfare noun
warfare in which opposing groups or nations have unequal military resources, and the weaker opponent uses unconventional weapons and tactics, as terrorism, to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemy.

Asymmetric warfare | Define Asymmetric warfare at Dictionary.com

9-11 is the most obvious example of asmmetic warfare to Americans.

Or, alternatively, the most recent drone strikes are examples of asymmetric warfare involving Americans... with the response coming outside a conventional battlefield... from the bigger dog in the fight...

 

[dblack]

Just in case it wasn't clear, I was asking you, Kondor3, what you meant by 'asymmetrical warfare'. In particular, in your view, does it qualify for the constitutional exceptions afforded traditional 'wars'? That's the important question, regardless of nomenclature.

 

[JakeStarkey]

asymmetric warfare noun
warfare in which opposing groups or nations have unequal military resources, and the weaker opponent uses unconventional weapons and tactics, as terrorism, to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemy.

Asymmetric warfare | Define Asymmetric warfare at Dictionary.com

9-11 is the most obvious example of asmmetic warfare to Americans.

Or, alternatively, the most recent drone strikes are examples of asymmetric warfare involving Americans... with the response coming outside a conventional battlefield... from the bigger dog in the fight...

Just so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just in case it wasn't clear, I was asking you, Kondor3, what you meant by 'asymmetrical warfare'. In particular, in your view, does it qualify for the constitutional exceptions afforded traditional 'wars'? That's the important question, regardless of nomenclature.

Understand this, dblack, that anyone can answer anyone's questions here.

As long as the president is operating within a force resolution or as a response to immediate response, yes, drones, like airstrikes, gun strikes, or rabid mouse bites, are constitutional.

 

[Kondor3]

What do you mean by "asymmetrical warfare"?

The classical definition, in which size or asset-inventory or manpower are lopsided in favor of one side or the other, and in which the tactics employed by both sides bear little resemblance to conventional warfare - blending a wide array of tactics including guerrilla warfare.

 

[dblack]

What do you mean by "asymmetrical warfare"?

The classical definition, in which size or asset-inventory or manpower are lopsided in favor of one side or the other, and in which the tactics employed by both sides bear little resemblance to conventional warfare - blending a wide array of tactics including guerrilla warfare.

If you happened to catch my follow-up - do think it qualifies for the constitutional exceptions we grant during traditional wars?

 

[Kondor3]

Just in case it wasn't clear, I was asking you, Kondor3, what you meant by 'asymmetrical warfare'. In particular, in your view, does it qualify for the constitutional exceptions afforded traditional 'wars'? That's the important question, regardless of nomenclature.

That all depends upon what you consider 'constitutional exceptions' in this context. I have my own suspicions with a high degree of probability but I am not certain.

 

[dblack]

Just in case it wasn't clear, I was asking you, Kondor3, what you meant by 'asymmetrical warfare'. In particular, in your view, does it qualify for the constitutional exceptions afforded traditional 'wars'? That's the important question, regardless of nomenclature.

That all depends upon what you consider 'constitutional exceptions' in this context. I have my own suspicions with a high degree of probability but I am not certain.

Well, due process in particular. Search and seizure, and privacy concerns as well. During a genuine war, we authorize government to 'shoot first and ask questions later'. Based on the definition you've provided, I wouldn't be willing to grant that kind of power for 'asymmetrical warfare'. I'd need more clarity on who qualifies as an enemy, and what qualifies as a battlefield.

Far too much of what I've heard in support of the 'War on Terror' justifies turning the exceptions of wartime into persistent policy, allowing government the power to capture or kill anyone suspected of being an enemy of the state. That's a recipe for tyranny in my book.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...The only legitimate military target is someone who is actually on the battlefield..."

That is your opinion. Others hold the opinion that in asymmetrical warfare, which oftentimes lacks conventional battlefields, any enemy combatant or enemy leadership or enemy asset is eligible for designation as a target, anytime, any place.

Others think the moon is made of green cheese.

"...which explains why we do not send the military in to clean up Chicago..."

American law prohibits the use of military assets in domestic policing operations on a routine basis, but we are talking about our military engaging asymmetrical warfare enemies overseas, not domestic mischief-makers. Apples and oranges.

Throwing around terms you don't understand in an attempt to look intelligent actually makes you look stupid. Simple fact, most modern warfare is asymmetrical. That doesn't give us the right to ignore the Geneva convention, despite your attempt to pretend it does.

"...This boy was not killed on a battlefield..."

True. That is immaterial in an asymmetrical warfare context as it applies to counter-terrorism operations.

Do yourself a favor, look up the definition of asymmetrical warfare, then come back here and admit you are so stupid you thought it meant that we could break the law, and that you were completely wrong.

"...he was killed saying goodbye to one of his friends on the front porch of a house were he had been staying."

Doesn't matter whether he was at a house or sitting around a campfire or in a cafe or in any of a thousand-and-one other possible locations.

What matters is that our people believed that they were targeting as many as a dozen terrorists and a leader or two when they fired on that position, and that he was hanging-around such folk or on-site at a place where these targets were expected to be at the time.

Is that what they believed? How can you know that? Do you have the ability to read minds through a magical time window? If you don't, you have no idea what they believed.

By the way, they never said they believed that there were as many as a dozen targets anywhere near him. They actually claimed they were targeting one person, not dozens.

I very seriously doubt that we decided to waste an $80K missile and the cost of a drone sortie on a 16-year-old kid.

Funny, I never said he was the target, I just pointed out that he was not on a battlefield, thus removing the collateral damage defense for his death.

There were almost certainly other problems... real-time intelligence, real-time assessment of the target-site and its occupants, legal authorizations, and other things.

There was fault here... perhaps great fault... but the intentional and focused killing of a 16-year-old seems rather low on the list of possibilities.

Which might explain why I question everything, not just the death of two teenagers, one of whom was born in this country.

By the way, I hate it when people assume that American lives have more value than lives of people from other countries, you really should focus on the fact that the government has admitted targeting funerals and people who come to dig out the victims of earlier missiles. Once you do that you might stop trying to argue that the fact that we have better technology gives us the right to kill people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

asymmetric warfare noun
warfare in which opposing groups or nations have unequal military resources, and the weaker opponent uses unconventional weapons and tactics, as terrorism, to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemy.

Asymmetric warfare | Define Asymmetric warfare at Dictionary.com

9-11 is the most obvious example of asmmetic warfare to Americans.

I would think that the US using guerrilla tactics to win the revolutionary war would be a better example, but I actually understand what the term means, and that terrorism is not warfare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

asymmetric warfare noun
warfare in which opposing groups or nations have unequal military resources, and the weaker opponent uses unconventional weapons and tactics, as terrorism, to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemy.

Asymmetric warfare | Define Asymmetric warfare at Dictionary.com

9-11 is the most obvious example of asmmetic warfare to Americans.

Or, alternatively, the most recent drone strikes are examples of asymmetric warfare involving Americans... with the response coming outside a conventional battlefield... from the bigger dog in the fight...

Or, alternatively, you could admit that the CIA use of drones is not actually warfare, which is why Obama feels free to ignore the laws that govern war.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just in case it wasn't clear, I was asking you, Kondor3, what you meant by 'asymmetrical warfare'. In particular, in your view, does it qualify for the constitutional exceptions afforded traditional 'wars'? That's the important question, regardless of nomenclature.

That all depends upon what you consider 'constitutional exceptions' in this context. I have my own suspicions with a high degree of probability but I am not certain.

Well, due process in particular. Search and seizure, and privacy concerns as well. During a genuine war, we authorize government to 'shoot first and ask questions later'. Based on the definition you've provided, I wouldn't be willing to grant that kind of power for 'asymmetrical warfare'. I'd need more clarity on who qualifies as an enemy, and what qualifies as a battlefield.

Far too much of what I've heard in support of the 'War on Terror' justifies turning the exceptions of wartime into persistent policy, allowing government the power to capture or kill anyone suspected of being an enemy of the state. That's a recipe for tyranny in my book.

Which is exactly why we need to stop pretending that Obama is following the rules. Especially when he literally announced that the largest theater for the use of drones, aka Pakistan, is exempted from the new rules he pretended he has.