Drones - its a method - who cares?

[Kondor3]

"..."

Get back to me when you've put down the booze bottle and become less belligerent and more coherent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"..."

Get back to me when you've put down the booze bottle and become less belligerent and more coherent.

I am not going to be less belligerent about defending the rights of everyone on the planet not to be killed simply because one man decides they deserve it.

 

[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.

Well, due process in particular.

Yeah, I kinda figured that was where you were going with this, but, as I said, I wasn't certain.

For whatever it's worth, I, too, have concerns about Definitions and Targeting and Authorizations and Accountability, and I think these ought to be dragged out into the open light of day and analyzed and discussed and if need-be tweaked.

Unlike you, I don't have as much of a problem with the idea of Shoot-First-and-Ask-Questions-Later, as part of this kind of Asymmetrical or Unconventional Warfare, but I admit that the whole concept needs more work - maybe a lot more work - before we can use it with confidence in this kind of warfare, going forward into the future.

I also hear what you are saying about being worried over wartime policy spilling over into peacetime and tyranny and all that, and I think that those, too, are valid concerns.

Personally, I'm for requiring the government to go to a Kill Court of some kind that is accountable to the Congress, in order to have a Death Warrant signed for a US Citizen who has become a dangerous enemy beyond our reach on enemy shores.

I'm also for closer supervision of Kill Orders issued by the military, even in connection with Kill Orders against non-US citizens, although I also have concerns about crippling the military as it tries to do its job. There has to be a middle ground in there someplace, although just what that might be escapes me at the moment.

In theory, no, I don't have much of a problem with employing drones to kill legitimate targets offshore, as a tactic akin to those allowed in conventional warfare.

In practice, yeah, I think the idea needs a lot of work, along with a lot of control and accountability, before we can move forward while still retaining this capability.

 

[dblack]

For whatever it's worth, I, too, have concerns about Definitions and Targeting and Authorizations and Accountability, and I think these ought to be dragged out into the open light of day and analyzed and discussed and if need-be tweaked.

Tweaked? What we have now is essentially no limits at all. Anyone suspected of being a terrorist loses their rights to due process. I don't want to 'tweak' that policy, I want to abolish it.

Unlike you, I don't have as much of a problem with the idea of Shoot-First-and-Ask-Questions-Later, as part of this kind of Asymmetrical or Unconventional Warfare, but I admit that the whole concept needs more work - maybe a lot more work - before we can use it with confidence in this kind of warfare, going forward into the future.

The 'work' is fundamental - not a matter of minor corrections. The problem is that a policy has been deliberately formulated to do an end run around the constitution by applying emergency exemptions as permanent policy. That's why those of us with 'paranoid' concerns about tyranny and fascism are so nervous. This is not a matter of minor course correction. It's a radical departure from our traditional form of government. I believe it will prove to be one of the worse mistakes we've made as a nation.

Personally, I'm for requiring the government to go to a Kill Court of some kind that is accountable to the Congress, in order to have a Death Warrant signed for a US Citizen who has become a dangerous enemy beyond our reach on enemy shores.

I'm also for closer supervision of Kill Orders issued by the military, even in connection with Kill Orders against non-US citizens, although I also have concerns about crippling the military as it tries to do its job. There has to be a middle ground in there someplace, although just what that might be escapes me at the moment.

The job of the military is to defend our nation in times of war, not to investigate crimes and apprehend suspects. They shouldn't even be dealing with terrorism at all. Military forces are not equipped, nor designed, to investigate crimes and apprehend suspects. There's no 'middle ground' because there's no legitimate overlap in concerns.

In theory, no, I don't have much of a problem with employing drones to kill legitimate targets offshore, as a tactic akin to those allowed in conventional warfare.

Do you suppose people living in other nations might have a problem with that policy? Are you willing to grant those nations the same power - to target 'enemies' in our country and assassinate them?

In practice, yeah, I think the idea needs a lot of work, along with a lot of control and accountability, before we can move forward while still retaining this capability.

The 'work' that needs to happen is for our country to wake up from the 9/11 induced panic and regain our sanity. We're jumping off a very deep end here and we're going to regret it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any combatant and non=combatant enemy does not have rights of due process if the individual has placed himself beyond the reach of LEO and will not voluntarily surrender.

 

[Freewill]

Gottja Fakey, Submit or die. That is one great foreign policy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Any combatant and non=combatant enemy does not have rights of due process if the individual has placed himself beyond the reach of LEO and will not voluntarily surrender.

Jake <3 Big Brother

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake equals constitutional standards.

Reactionaries equal do whatever is politically expedient.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake wants Obama to use those drone against "Right Wing Extremists" you know, like veterans and Tea Party memebers

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Of course he is following the rules set out by Congress in the wake of 9-11.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1] (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Freewill]

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.

Of course he is following the rules set out by Congress in the wake of 9-11.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1] (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am thinking all those who planned 9/11 are dead, OBL being the last. Don't you think that taking out a 16 year old in Yemen is a stretch of the language you provided?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Of course he is following the rules set out by Congress in the wake of 9-11.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force[1] (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am thinking all those who planned 9/11 are dead, OBL being the last. Don't you think that taking out a 16 year old in Yemen is a stretch of the language you provided?

We didn't 'take out' a 16 year old.

Bush killed thousands of civilians in Iraq. Why did you support that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

When you invent rights for terrorists you must have some sort of perverse affection for them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 9/11 Pentagon attack was against a legitimate military target so I assume it was fine to kill a load of civilians in the process as they simply got in the way.

Or not?

So you're claiming that the firebombing of Tokyo wasn't justified even though we were in a war started by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Okay. So how would you have reacted to the attack on Pearl Harbor?

The fire bombing of Tokyo was not justified there was no military value. Just like the fire bombing of Dresden.

That would mean you believe that the use of nuclear weapons, even in self defense, would not be justified. How do you propose we react to a nuclear attack on this country?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who wish to guarantee rights for terrorists when those rights never existed before are enemies of America, plain and simple.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bush's military killed Zarqawi with 500 lb bombs that also killed his wife and kid. Why aren't you accusing Bush of murder?

Because he didn't wait two weeks after Zarqawis death and slaughter them in a separate location - the way your god did to al-Awlakis son.

Yes he was targeted and deliberately murdered - and you know it. But Obama is the ONLY thing that matters to you - so you lie about it.

Don't accuse me of lying. The drone attack that killed that kid had a legitimate Al Qaeda target. End of story, case closed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Those who wish to guarantee rights for terrorists when those rights never existed before are enemies of America, plain and simple.

Windbag said in this thread that an Al Qaeda terrorist has the right to 'safe haven' simply by putting himself in proximity to children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who wish to guarantee rights for terrorists when those rights never existed before are enemies of America, plain and simple.

Windbag said in this thread that an Al Qaeda terrorist has the right to 'safe haven' simply by putting himself in proximity to children.

What we have are far right reactionaries who realize now that the reach of government can reach them where ever they try to hide when they break the law.

They realize all this silly talk of rising against the government will result in the death of their families as well as themselves.

Fact: the boy was abused by his family and friends, and died as a result of their abuse.

 

[dblack]

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.

When you invent rights for terrorists you must have some sort of perverse affection for them.

I'll respectfully ask you to consider the following point - and either explain why you reject it, or acknowledge that your claim here is flat out wrong.

We're not arguing for the rights of terrorists. We're arguing for the rights of everyone else. Once someone is determined to be an actual terrorist, they forfeit their rights in my view. Throw them in jail or kill them as fits their crime. The rights to due process protect people who are not yet determined to be guilty. What you are implicitly endorsing is government that can imprison or kill people without first proving them to be guilty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, one young man was an innocent victim of a drone strike, because he was placed in such a situation by family and friends.

Guys, war is war, and the innocents suffer. Do you not understand this? Rifle, tank, napalm, drone, whatever, the innocents suffer, often because family and friends do stupid things.

no one placed him in harms way. He was just a kid who ran away to try to find his dad.

The kid died because family and friends put him in a war zone. Yes, the family is at fault, and God will hold them accountable before the bar of justice in the final days.

Fakey what in the Hell is wrong with you? Yemen is not a war zone they are suppose to be our ally. I don't know what you are paid to pretend to be a Republican but whomever is paying ain't getting their monies worth.

Besides the fact that just because the kid had an ahole for a father doesn't give your messiah the right to snuff him out. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Google Kamal Derwish.