Drones

[MooseMom]

What do you all see as the pros and cons of America's use of drones?  Do you approve or disapprove?

[glitter]

I approve for two reasons.
The first one is because it can take the place of a human and keeps one more American out of harms way.
The second is because anything that helps us fight our enemies more precisely is okay with me. I don't like to see unnecessary killing of civilians and if they help target the bad guys- goodie for us.

Then there is the use of them in the US to watch the borders (good idea?) and to help the police watch the citizens (bad idea)- I dont like the idea of the government using so much power over the citizens, just my 

[lmunchkin]

I really do not know enough about them to have an opinion one way or the other.  I quess if used properly, they can be a good thing.  But if abused, then that would be a bad thing.

What is your opinion on unmaned planes, MM?

God Bless,
lmunchkin 

[Bill Peckham]

I would like for the ends to justify the means but that rarely works out - it is better to face things squarely. There has to be a way to kill people that does not involve embarrassing legal reasoning. I think we should all be concerned.

[MaryD]

I do not like the use of drones.  Would you approve of drones if another country was picking off people in the USA with drones?  And it wont be long before every man and his dog has access to them. 

 

[MooseMom]

I do not like the use of drones.  Would you approve of drones if another country was picking off people in the USA with drones?  And it wont be long before every man and his dog has access to them. 

 

Agreed.  This technology will not remain secret. 

I have to wonder if anyone is contemplating using drones to "secure the border".

The use of drones just seems cowardly.  It reminds me of that Star Trek episode "A Taste of Armageddon" where two planets have been at war with each other for so long that they have forgotten the reason they're fighting in the first place.  The conflict is now conducted by computers so that both societies can avoid the mess and chaos of real battles.  So "casualties" are cleanly executed; computers decide who dies next, and the "casualties" are real people who are really killed by sterile machines.

Drones remind me of this.

And I don't like it that this program is run by the CIA and not by the military.

We are creating more enemies.

Edited to add:  This is sort of interesting.  Things are rarely clear-cut...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-using-secret-airbase-in-saudi-arabia-to-carry-out-drone-strikes-against-alqaida-militants-in-yemen-8483045.html

[MaryD]

We are creating more enemies.

Agreed!









EDITED:  Fixed quote tag error - jbeany, Moderator

[jbeany]

We create enemies no matter if our presence is physical or virtual - or non-existent.  The Towers fell because they didn't like us even before our military moved in.  Whether that was the right choice or not, our military and political leaders are going to continue to attempt to intervene in whatever way they have available, be it boots on the ground or drones in the air.  While I'd prefer peace to a rather pointless decade long war, I prefer any version that doesn't involve sending Americans into harms way.  It may be the lesser of evils, but having seen what my BIL looked like when he returned from his second tour, I say bring on the drones. 

[Willis]

There are two issues here. As a weapon of war the drones are no different than an Abrams tank or an F-16. For purposes of warfare our drone technology gives us at least a temporary edge over potential enemies. Unfortunately, the definition of war in our time is no longer black-and-white but that's a different topic.

However, the use of drones as an extra-territorial arm of American law enforcement seems to be outside the bounds of any traditional definition of national sovereignty. It seems the fact that no one is literally piloting the aircraft is used as a justification for assassinations outside our jurisdiction without any Constitutional limits or protections. When and how did we assume the right to kill anyone we want in any country we want outside of legally (or at least generally) recognized combat zones?

 

[MooseMom]

There are two issues here. As a weapon of war the drones are no different than an Abrams tank or an F-16. For purposes of warfare our drone technology gives us at least a temporary edge over potential enemies. Unfortunately, the definition of war in our time is no longer black-and-white but that's a different topic.

However, the use of drones as an extra-territorial arm of American law enforcement seems to be outside the bounds of any traditional definition of national sovereignty. It seems the fact that no one is literally piloting the aircraft is used as a justification for assassinations outside our jurisdiction without any Constitutional limits or protections. When and how did we assume the right to kill anyone we want in any country we want outside of legally (or at least generally) recognized combat zones?

 

Agreed.  And the fact that the definition of war in our time is no longer black and white leads to all kinds of legal fog as you've pointed out, Willis.

We seem to be once again at a place where new technology outpaces the legal and moral guides to how to use it.







EDITED:  Fixed quote tag error - jbeany, Moderator

[Hober Mallow]

I approve for two reasons.
The first one is because it can take the place of a human and keeps one more American out of harms way.
The second is because anything that helps us fight our enemies more precisely is okay with me. I don't like to see unnecessary killing of civilians and if they help target the bad guys- goodie for us.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you support the drone program, your given second reason is puzzling. Drone attacks have resulted and continue to result in the collateral deaths of civilians. Hardly the precision killings you seem to think they are.

From http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/02/08/287889/us-conducted-363-drone-raids-in-pakistan/.

According to the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization, the US administration has used 363 of its assassination drones to hit targets in Pakistan since 2004, with 311 of them occurring under the administration of President Barack Obama.

The terror airstrikes have killed between 2,634 and 3,468 people in Pakistan, the organization stated, adding that at least 176 children have been killed in the attacks.

The assassination drone attacks have also left between 1,268 to 1,431 people injured, the Bureau added.

How would you react if China sent over unmanned planes to target political enemies in California, only to blow up an entire apartment complex full of innocent Americans in the process?

And no one's yet brought up the fact that American citizens have been targeted and killed entirely without due process. Does anyone here support that?

[Henry P Snicklesnorter]

.

[Hober Mallow]

Press TV is owned by Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, a state owned unit.

The numbers didn't come from Press TV, they came from a London-based group.

But if you need a good ol' U.S. of A. study, here you go:

U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.

The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.

The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as "a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer," saying that in reality, "there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes