Drones - its a method - who cares?

[Kondor3]

"...No you dont..."

Do not presume to tell me how I feel about such deaths.

"...all your trying to do is justify the unjustifiable..."

I need justify nothing. The Congress of the United States of America, in granting War Powers to the President, to fight the present campaign against Radical Islam (War on Terror) has provided all the justification needed.

"...Again bombing the crap out of a ccountry is one thing..."

But we are bombing... very precisely... it's just that we're using unmanned drones to do it.

And we making far less of a mess and generating far fewer casualties than conventional bombing sorties would generate.

"...But sitting behind a joy stick in Nevada and launching a hell fire missle 12,000 miles away at a single human being (who your not really sure who it is) is just being a *****..."

Fine. Then you need to pick up a rifle and go in there and get the Bad Guys for us. After all, that's the non-***** Manly Way, isn't it? Go get 'em, and let us know when you're done.

Welcome to 21st Century Warfare.

 

[georgephillip]

Until the jihadist and their defenders put the love of their children before their hatred of the enemy, the jihadist and his family will cry forever.

Unless the capitalists and their gangsters learn to love children more than profits, their racket will end humanity:

"War is a racket… easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious… It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives….

"It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes….

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.

"In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

The ?War On Terror? Is A $6 Trillion Racket, With $1 Trillion In Interest Alone, Exceeding The Total Cost Of World War II | AmpedStatus

What on earth pray tell does your post have to do with the OP and this thread?

Use your imagination:

"Here then, is the problem we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?

-- The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, 1955"

This thread began with the argument that the morality of killing in a state of war is independent of the means used. That general observation became specific when the subject of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike two weeks after his father Anwar al-Awlaki met a similar fate.

IMHO, Jake blamed the victims of drone strikes instead of those who profit from the immorality of killing children for Cross and Capital. It is not a question of the method used to exterminate innocent lives as much as it is the "stark, dreadful, and inescapable" madness of any specie that kills its young for money and market share.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It is funny, seeing the emoprogs and ODS crowd allied in their seething irrationality. Both fringes are now united by their hatred of Obama, to the point that they now side with enemy combatants against the USA.

For those unfamiliar with the term, "emoprogs" refers to the oh-so-morally-pure liberal types who live to be upset. They especially hate Democrats who do messy things like compromise and successfully work for incremental change. According to an emoprog, the president has dictatorial powers, and any president's failure to immediately and forcefully implement every single liberal policy proves he's "just like the Republicans". Emoprogs may dislike Republicans, but they save most of their vitriol for Democratic "sellouts". And should you fail to demonize Obama as fervently as an emoprog does, you will be defined as an "Obamabot" or something similar.

They also tend to use logic like "We need to punish the Democrats! If we get a Republican elected, America will see how bad Republicans are and flock to our emoprog cause!". Because that worked so well with Bush.

And they really hate the term "emoprogs", which is a good reason to use it.

No what is hilarious is how the left is so quiet on Obama the nobel peace prize winner/war monger/killer....It is so funny on how the left bitched and stomped their foot on Bush jr's water boarding yet dont give a shit about Obama just killing someone with out due process. Republicans wars=Bad. Democrat wars= Libya, what war????? Bush Sr was in and out of Iraq in like 6 months. Why did it take like Obama 2 years to end it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

"...No you dont..."

Do not presume to tell me how I feel about such deaths.

"...all your trying to do is justify the unjustifiable..."

I need justify nothing. The Congress of the United States of America, in granting War Powers to the President, to fight the present campaign against Radical Islam (War on Terror) has provided all the justification needed.

"...Again bombing the crap out of a ccountry is one thing..."

But we are bombing... very precisely... it's just that we're using unmanned drones to do it.

And we making far less of a mess and generating far fewer casualties than conventional bombing sorties would generate.

"...But sitting behind a joy stick in Nevada and launching a hell fire missle 12,000 miles away at a single human being (who your not really sure who it is) is just being a *****..."

Fine. Then you need to pick up a rifle and go in there and get the Bad Guys for us. After all, that's the non-***** Manly Way, isn't it? Go get 'em, and let us know when you're done.

Welcome to 21st Century Warfare.

Fine what? its not the 21st century warfare its the 49 B.C. Ceasar warfare..Only a person with blinders on would support this type of warfare and can not see its wrong. You need closure otherwise you get idiot conspiracy theories like with bin laden always popping up on the internet.Why even bother with the drones anyways why not just turn the entire place into glass and end it?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Fine what? its not the 21st century warfare its the 49 B.C. Ceasar warfare..Only a person with blinders on would support this type of warfare and can not see its wrong. You need closure otherwise you get idiot conspiracy theories like with bin laden always popping up on the internet.Why even bother with the drones anyways why not just turn the entire place into glass and end it?"

It is clear that we have hit an impasse. I have said all that I need to say on the subject. Thank you for your time on this one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...You defended a policy that kills women and children, man up and admit it..."

All war-policy risks the deaths of women and children; not just one(s) pertaining to the use of drones. All war-policy. Have I defended war-policy (our right to kill the enemy)? Yep. Have I defended any policy that targets women and children? Nope.

War has progressively become more deadly to non combatants over time, and the tactics of the drone war are the most deadly. If Obama actually lost sleep over killing non combatants he would go back to sending in the Marines, who are much better equipped to make life and death decisions than a drone operator who can't tell the difference between a wedding party and a meeting of the Taliban high command. You keep defending it because you believe the lying sack of shit despite the fact that people in this thread have linked to mulitiple independent reviews that show the kill ratio runs as high as 10 civilian deaths for every alleged member of a terror group.

You are now faced with a choice, continue to back a policy that deliberately targets civilians on nothing more than the say so of one man, which you claim to abhor, or continue to back it.

"...If you think it is wrong, say so, don't pretend you you are defending something else."

Yes, I believe that your labeling of what I have been defending is wrong.

Believe whatever you want, just don't expect the rest of the universe to confirm your delusions.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Believe whatever you want, just don't expect the rest of the universe to confirm your delusions."

When you can disprove my contentions (a) that we are operating under wartime conditions in which the President holds War Powers authorized by Congress and (b) that we are therefore in a state of undeclared war with Radical Militant Islamist Persons and Organizations and (c) that such Persons and Organizations are legitimate targets of war operations (including drone-strikes) and (d) that our drone-strike policy is compliant with and authorized under US law by those same War Powers and (e) that our drone-strike policies are designed to facilitate the killing of Enemy Combatants and Leadership, not innocent civilians...

...then... and only then... will you be in a legitimate position to spin the defense of such policies - or even, simply, their labeling - as 'delusional'.

Until such time, in a debate or conversational context, I am content that my position is supported by both US Government pronouncements on the subject from multiple departments and by the fact that we continue to operate in this mode without a successful challenge to such policies in US courts by those opposing or reading dark intent into same.

 

[Kondor3]

"...War has progressively become more deadly to non combatants over time..."

Beyond the realm of seldom-used nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry...

Indeed. War has become progressively more deadly to non-combatants over time. Culminating in the tactic known as 'carpet bombing', which saturates a target-area with powerful explosive munitions without ability or regard to distinguish between individuals.

"...and the tactics of the drone war are the most deadly..."

By no means.

Using a weaponized drone on November 3, 2008, to get 26 Taliban in Afghanistan, the Bush II Administration also killed 37 civilians next door or nearby.

Had we carpet-bombed that same target, we would probably have racked-up 370 civilian deaths rather than 37.

The steer-able, smart, camera-equipped missle(s) fired that day provided the ability to put the missile(s) through a particular window or door, quite probably. No carpet-bombing needed, to be certain we hit the target.

One of three things happened that day:

(1) our intelligence did not include mention of a wedding occurring nearby that day.

(2) our intelligence did include such mention, and we decided to strike anyway.

(3) our missile hit a little off-center from where our operators wanted it to.

My money is on (1) but, of course, I could be wrong.

If it was (3), then, we are looking at mechanical failure, operating in good faith and in compliance with established policy governing the use of such war-technology.

If it was (2), then, our people made a choice which is far more difficult (emotionally, anyway) to defend, and we may even be looking at policy violations, in the final analysis.

If it was (1), then, we operated in good faith and in compliance with established policy governing the use of such war-technology.

Nowhere up-and-down the line here, do I see Policy as being at fault.

The technology might be at-fault, the intelligence might be at-fault, or the decision-making process might be at-fault, but I do not see Policy taking the hit here.

"...If Obama actually lost sleep over killing non combatants he would go back to sending in the Marines, who are much better equipped to make life and death decisions than a drone operator who can't tell the difference between a wedding party and a meeting of the Taliban high command..."

I am guessing that he - and, indeed, many Americans, including myself, would rather lose 37 innocent non-American civilians to get 26 Bad Guys, than lose 100 or 200 or 300 US Marines venturing into Taliban-held territory in order to get those Bad Guys.

The Enemy Target Profile (important person or large group, rare opportunity, un-touchable or un-reachable otherwise) seems in perfect alignment with optimum use of weaponized drone war-technology.

"...You keep defending it because you believe the lying sack of shit despite the fact that people in this thread have linked to mulitiple independent reviews that show the kill ratio runs as high as 10 civilian deaths for every alleged member of a terror group..."

No. I have been defending it because I understand the difference between Policy and Execution of Policy, and am capable of separating the two, and defending the former dispassionately without regard for the latter, and because I understand that such Policy is non-partisan in nature; developed over a span of two or three Administrations by both our military and intelligence services, with considerable input by legalists, and both inherited-by and expanded-upon by the present Administration.

I also defend the Policy because it (1) saves American military lives during wartime and (2) results in far fewer casualties than other acceptable tactics such as carpet-bombing.

"...You are now faced with a choice, continue to back a policy that deliberately targets civilians on nothing more than the say so of one man..."

I face no such choice, because our Policy is NOT to deliberately target civilians; rather, our policy is to deliberately kill Enemy Combatants and Leadership.

If you are in a position to prove me wrong - if you can conjure-up a policy document that permits the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians (people who are not Enemy Combatants or Leaders), I (and others) would be very grateful to you for opening our eyes in this context.

"...which you claim to abhor..."

'Abhor' is a rather strong word. I voted for him twice, but only because I perceived both McSame and Mittens to be even worse choices... and held my nose while voting... and had doubts and regrets even as I was walking out of the voting booth. I don't think very highly of several of his policies (immigration, healthcare, welfare-statism, foreign policy, etc.) but 'abhor' is a rather strong word. I'm just not a big fan, and wish I'd had better choices.

"...or continue to back it."

So long as I perceive (1) the policy is designed to kill Enemy Combatants rather than Civilians and (2) it triggers fewer civilian deaths as collateral damage than more established tactics such as carpet-bombing and (3) it saves the lives of American service folk and (4) it is successful in killing lots of Bad Guys... I will, indeed, continue to support it.

I have no problem with us - as a nation - undertaking a holistic review of both Policy and its Execution - encompassing all factors, including command-and-control, intelligence, strike-time on-site observation assets for final confirmation of conditions, accountability, legality, ethics, etc. - heck, I think it's a grand idea.

I merely decline to (a) fault Policy or (b) engage in partisan sniping or (c) deprive us of a valuable war-asset - merely because accidents have planted doubts in our minds, about Aspect A or B or C of such operations.

 

[BlindBoo]

Not sure why anyone supports assassination, its personal and aimed at one individual, its not war and your killing that person with out due process.
War and blowing shit up is not aimed a individual but at a group/country, the enemy. The Drones search/target and try to kill one person on the hit list. It's like the mob, not war.

Summary. Executive Order 12333 prohibits assassination as a matter of national policy,
but does not expound on its meaning or application. This memorandum explores the term and analyzes application of the ban to military operations at three levels: (a) conventional military operations; (b) counterinsurgency operations; and (c) peacetime counter-terrorist operations. It concludes that the clandestine, low visibility or overt use of military force against legitimate targets in time of war, or against similar targets in time of peace where such individuals or groups pose an immediate threat to United States citizens or the national security of the United States, as determined by competent authority, does not constitute assassination or conspiracy to engage in assassination, and would not be prohibited by the proscription in EO 12333 or by international law.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/targetedkilling/papers/ParksMemorandum.pdf

 

[Circe]

American citizen not afforded due process.

Tell me please you understand that the government has now admitted to killing, assassinating American citizens without a trial?

Lets start there.

This thread is about drone strikes. It goes two ways.

Drone strikes that whack 49 to 1 terrorist.

Drone strikes assassinating American citizens.

Defend either please.

Terrorists hiding in Yemen and other sandpits hardly need to be afforded due process. What they need is killing.

Same deal with police shooting people here. If somebody needs shooting in Cleveland or Wyoming, it hardly matters if the police use a small bullet or a really big drone bullet.

More drones! I love 'em.

 

[usfan]

I do not oppose the idea of drones in combat. They are a military tool, like any bomb or weapon. For that, they have their place. But using ANY military means for a political agenda is unconstitutional, imo. Without a declaration of war, by the entire congress, there should be NO police action, NO bombing of foreign lands, & NO occupation. We can do military maneuvers with our allies, & play war games, for entertainment. It is NOT the ideal of a free people to used military oppression & intimidation to prop up corrupt dictators or violate the sovereignty of other nations.

If america is to be a beacon of freedom, we have to respect that ideal in our dealings with other nations. IF a nation wants to be aggressive & kill our people, we can respond with violence & force. But using govt force for political agendas, with conflicting agendas of corporate interests & cronyism, is completely at odds with the values of a free people.

 

[BlindBoo]

You did.

Nope. I speculated that the kid was a collateral casualty resulting from a legitimate strike. But you're so blinded by partisanship that you cannot distinguish 'defending an assassination of a kid' from 'speculating that the death was accidental'. Not much of a surprise, that.

You defended a policy that kills children as legitimate warfare because it manages to kill 1 legitimate target for every 10 people that die. Frankly, we would be better off if we carpet bombed the entire region, there would be less collateral damage.

Cause killing everyone in a neighborhood would kill many less than killing everyone in a single house? Not!

 

[Circe]

But using ANY military means for a political agenda is unconstitutional, imo. Without a declaration of war, by the entire congress, there should be NO police action, NO bombing of foreign lands, & NO occupation.

Why say that when the ship has long since sailed?

Since the UN formed, no president has had to get Congress to declare a war. They all just pretend it's "help" with a UN action. (Even when the UN votes against it, as with the second Iraq War.)

I would like wars to be constitutionally declared, too, but that's been a dead letter for 75 years, so I can't see the point in discussing it anymore, unless there is some hope of reinstating that constitutional provision, which of course there isn't. Presidents love to start their wars on the quick and easy.

 

[dblack]

But using ANY military means for a political agenda is unconstitutional, imo. Without a declaration of war, by the entire congress, there should be NO police action, NO bombing of foreign lands, & NO occupation.

Why say that when the ship has long since sailed?

Since the UN formed, no president has had to get Congress to declare a war. They all just pretend it's "help" with a UN action. (Even when the UN votes against it, as with the second Iraq War.)

I would like wars to be constitutionally declared, too, but that's been a dead letter for 75 years, so I can't see the point in discussing it anymore, unless there is some hope of reinstating that constitutional provision, which of course there isn't. Presidents love to start their wars on the quick and easy.

We discuss it to raise awareness and, hopefully, build support for changing it. Why do we discuss any problems with status quo when it comes to government? Also, the added flim-flam injected with the 'War on Terror' makes it even more urgent to correct the problem. They're now claiming their executive powers as persistent and permanent, and establishing the entire world - even our own interior - as a 'battlefield'. Are you saying we should just acquiesce and quit whining?

 

[Circe]

We discuss it to raise awareness and, hopefully, build support for changing it. Why do we discuss any problems with status quo when it comes to government? Also, the added flim-flam injected with the 'War on Terror' makes it even more urgent to correct the problem. They're now claiming their executive powers as persistent and permanent, and establishing the entire world - even our own interior - as a 'battlefield'. Are you saying we should just acquiesce and quit whining?

Yes, I think it's hopeless. May as well stop whining. They've been starting war after war at will my whole lifetime, Congress not invited to comment. I would much prefer Constitutional declarations, but the pig is out of the pen and we can't catch it now.

Wait till there is a reorganization, revolutionary or such. Then push that HARD. Because it is war, especially these ten-year-long losing forever wars, that bankrupt all nations, everywhen, everywhere. In our case, Vietnam, Iraq II, and Afghanistan. But all presidents want to wage war freely now and they all can, so there it is.

Genies, bottles, hard to put back in.

But good luck to you. It would be better your way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"...Believe whatever you want, just don't expect the rest of the universe to confirm your delusions."

When you can disprove my contentions (a) that we are operating under wartime conditions in which the President holds War Powers authorized by Congress and (b) that we are therefore in a state of undeclared war with Radical Militant Islamist Persons and Organizations and (c) that such Persons and Organizations are legitimate targets of war operations (including drone-strikes) and (d) that our drone-strike policy is compliant with and authorized under US law by those same War Powers and (e) that our drone-strike policies are designed to facilitate the killing of Enemy Combatants and Leadership, not innocent civilians...

...then... and only then... will you be in a legitimate position to spin the defense of such policies - or even, simply, their labeling - as 'delusional'.

Until such time, in a debate or conversational context, I am content that my position is supported by both US Government pronouncements on the subject from multiple departments and by the fact that we continue to operate in this mode without a successful challenge to such policies in US courts by those opposing or reading dark intent into same.

Your only contention is that you trust the government. How am I supposed to disprove that when you refuse to accept the reality that government cannot be trusted?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Beyond the realm of seldom-used nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry...

Indeed. War has become progressively more deadly to non-combatants over time. Culminating in the tactic known as 'carpet bombing', which saturates a target-area with powerful explosive munitions without ability or regard to distinguish between individuals.

Do you have a contention there? How am I supposed to disprove anything you say when you just change the subject and blather randomly?

Data point, the ratio of non combatant deaths to that of actual combatants increased after we stopped carpet bombing, which means that you do not understand what culminating means. Some estimates but the ratio of civilians to actual terrorists killed by drones at 50 to 1.

Military and Civilian War Dead Through The Years

US Drones Kill 49 Civilians For Every "Bad Guy" | War on Terror

If you have an actual point to make concerning this, feel free. If you are just going to blather on endlessly about how wonderful the government is, and how you trust it implicitly, stuff it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope. I speculated that the kid was a collateral casualty resulting from a legitimate strike. But you're so blinded by partisanship that you cannot distinguish 'defending an assassination of a kid' from 'speculating that the death was accidental'. Not much of a surprise, that.

You defended a policy that kills children as legitimate warfare because it manages to kill 1 legitimate target for every 10 people that die. Frankly, we would be better off if we carpet bombed the entire region, there would be less collateral damage.

Cause killing everyone in a neighborhood would kill many less than killing everyone in a single house? Not!

You really don't know how carpet bombing works, do you? If it actually killed everyone we would have ended the war in Vietnam with no one left in Cambodia.

 

[Kondor3]

"...It would be better your way."

Agreed. Wholeheartedly. I, too, would like to see us revert to overriding Congressional control over warmaking; at least beyond the realm of legitimate defensive measures.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Believe whatever you want, just don't expect the rest of the universe to confirm your delusions."

When you can disprove my contentions (a) that we are operating under wartime conditions in which the President holds War Powers authorized by Congress and (b) that we are therefore in a state of undeclared war with Radical Militant Islamist Persons and Organizations and (c) that such Persons and Organizations are legitimate targets of war operations (including drone-strikes) and (d) that our drone-strike policy is compliant with and authorized under US law by those same War Powers and (e) that our drone-strike policies are designed to facilitate the killing of Enemy Combatants and Leadership, not innocent civilians...

...then... and only then... will you be in a legitimate position to spin the defense of such policies - or even, simply, their labeling - as 'delusional'.

Until such time, in a debate or conversational context, I am content that my position is supported by both US Government pronouncements on the subject from multiple departments and by the fact that we continue to operate in this mode without a successful challenge to such policies in US courts by those opposing or reading dark intent into same.

Your only contention is that you trust the government...

Nope.

My contentions are outlined as (a) through (e) above.

And they are the key questions which must be answered in accordance with your own position in this matter, in order to successfully sustain your claim that these drone strikes are not legitimate and that they intentionally target innocent civilians.

If you can address these - or even most of these - itemized contentions substantively, with some fairly high degree of credibility and reliability of sources, then you will have disproven those itemized contentions to an extent sufficient to establish and sustain your claims.

Attempting to weasel-out of the challenge to address such necessary points, by waving a magic wand and claiming that all five points distill-down to trusting the government, is both disingenuous and symptomatic of intellectual cowardice and juvenile tactics when cornered.

"...How am I supposed to disprove that when you refuse to accept the reality that government cannot be trusted?"

Oh, I have no problem with the idea that Government is not to be trusted.

I don't trust 'em either, from time to time, on a number of things - this included.

I have provided you with five (5) itemized questions that need to be answered, in order to prove that they cannot be trusted in this particular matter.

All you need do now is to address such questions, in order to lock-down a win, with your claims that these drone-strikes are illegitimate and that they intentionally target innocent civilians.

You are the one issuing the overall challenge with those contentions.

It is incumbent upon you as the challenger to substantiate those claims.

My list of five questions (a) through (e) will serve you in good stead, as you work towards substantiating your claims.

Good luck.