Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 8, 2013 at 6:33pm

"rubbing one off" for the pentagon.

LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Cox on March 8, 2013 at 8:02pm

So how many 'other deaths' will be tolerated, to catch just 'a few', 'bad people'?

What other targets could be authorized, given some corporate or government interest?

If they fly a drone over US soil, how will the locals responde?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 8, 2013 at 8:59pm

"Bad people" covers a lot of ground. There are some pretty bad people in al qaeda. Today, a lot of these bad people purposefully hide themselves among civilians. Obviously, this doesn't provide perfect protection, but if they get killed along with some civilians, the civilians function as fodder for their propaganda efforts. 

What other targets might be authorized? I don't think anyone here knows the answer.

Who is "they"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 10, 2013 at 6:20pm

@ Unseen,

Who is "they"?

Answer: 

Anyone other then me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ed on March 8, 2013 at 10:10pm

Due process should normally be the paramount concern for maintaining law and order within U.S. borders. Warrants should be served or attempted to be served, etc if an individual is considered in violation of federal or state law. 

In an extremely rare instance of a national security concern on U.S. soil,  involving a potential large loss of life, a military intervention may be justifiable. But a drone would be a stupid choice when we have fighter jet pilots much more appropriate for the situation.

The use of drones both abroad and stateside is very troubling to me. Our ability to target and kill people remotely with no assurance that innocents are spared is a pause for concern. Clicking a mouse button a world away and justifying mistaken targets or victims of circumstance as collateral damage seems pathetically insufficient.

I recently contacted my state's congressional representatives for my area regarding the possible use of drones by local or federal officials to surveil private citizens on their property. Several states bordering Arkansas have already brought forth proposed legislation to ban or severely restrict the use of drones in their state's airspace. Neither representative has responded to my concerns and I'm not sure how to interpret that at the moment. This issue will continue to move into our consciousness as government(s) decide how much the populace is willing to allow invasion into their privacy. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate Lundgren on March 8, 2013 at 10:33pm

Bottomline, war is hell for both sides. I'm anti-war. We need to end the wars now. If they attack in the future then we will have to fight again in self defense. At this point in time, staying in Afghanistan is just giving them easy targets. If the governments in Afghanistan or Pakistan want our help in the future that is fine but we as a country have no justifiable reasons to be there anymore. I'm glad that Obama is scaling back the troops there and the sooner the better.

I agree that drones are a blunt weapon and should not be used very often. If they make ones that can kill just the one person that is actively trying to kill people then I can see them as being useful, otherwise it is like throwing a watermelon on a pile of ants to kill just one or two bad ones of them. It is really a lame and messy tactic and I agree that it is morally disgusting.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on March 8, 2013 at 10:57pm

Nobody I know is proposing that drones be used to kill burglars, bank robbers, or even drug kingpins in the United States. I'm sure we're only talking about imminent threat situations where the drone is the best option to save lives.

Some perpetrators, through the seriousness of their threat, and the imminence of the threat they pose, essentially force the government's hand. When the SWAT team is called on the guy holding the mother and infant hostage, he's essentially giving up his right of due process. The same, I would say, is true of a terrorist.

States can't ban the use of a Federal drone. They lack the standing to do so. They are a subservient level of government. What they most likely are doing is answering citizen's privacy concerns over small drones fitted with miniature cameras, though a private drone might be fitted with some sort of explosive device or gas canister, I suppose.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sagacious Hawk on March 9, 2013 at 2:20am

"Some perpetrators, through the seriousness of their threat, and the imminence of the threat they pose, essentially force the government's hand. When the SWAT team is called on the guy holding the mother and infant hostage, he's essentially giving up his right of due process. The same, I would say, is true of a terrorist."

My thought was that there is little difference between a known armed and dangerous man being taken out by a SWAT sniper and a person armed with a car bomb and known to be dangerous being taken out from the air by a missile whose resulting damage incurs no other deaths. It's a last-option case, but I can't shake the thought that they are essentially the same situation just scaled up in destructive power.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sagacious Hawk on March 9, 2013 at 3:10am

"Our ability to target and kill people remotely with no assurance that innocents are spared is a pause for concern. Clicking a mouse button a world away and justifying mistaken targets or victims of circumstance as collateral damage seems pathetically insufficient."

As the video will show, one doesn't have to be a world away to justify mistaking a target. It happens in combat especially when engaging a force that is not a national army with a distinctive uniform that a person can tell apart from everyday civilians. We are trained to make better judgement calls, but it's like seeing the proverbial tiger in the rustling bushes. Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes they make bad judgement calls. Piloting a drone doesn't necessarily make those mistakes more or less likely and being in the action doesn't make it more justifiable. The sad truth is that in combat there will be civilian casualties. The best that any law-abiding national military can hope to do is limit those casualties. The US has gone to great lengths to do so at the risk of its own personnel. The Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan are so restrictive that our Soldiers are complaining that they can't even return fire at times even when they are fired upon.

I think we can agree that degrading the loss of non-combatant life and the personal tragedy they experience while trying to survive amidst armed conflict to the words "collateral damage" is "pathetically insufficient." Let us also agree that it is not drones that cause this, it is the nature of combat that civilians will suffer in a war zone. My point is that distance has no bearing on the matter of civilian casualties (an argument that several people seem to be making), and even being in the middle of a fight does not given any assurance that civilians won't get hurt or killed.

The video is graphic in nature showing an attack by an Apache. You have been warned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on March 9, 2013 at 5:08pm

Remember what it was for:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 10, 2013 at 6:35pm

@ the Hawk,

The Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan are so restrictive that our Soldiers are complaining that they can't even return fire at times even when they are fired upon.

I had a friend who flew F-4's in Nam, he was in a dogfight once and his missile took out the other guy on the wrong side of an imaginary line. 

Guess who got in trouble for violating the "Rules of Engagement"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on March 9, 2013 at 7:26am

@ Ed,

Clicking a mouse button a world away

Firing a missile will always be done with a button, whether when looking at a computer screen or a H.U.D., there is no practical difference. The important issue is how you qualify the use of a missile on your own people in your own country.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page