I pointed out in my first post that I know not many agree with me on this. I'm OK with that and I realize I probably won't be able to change many minds.
Just to be clear: I am OK with our government eliminating threats not based on what they might do but what we have solid intelligence they are a) planning to do or b) aiding and abetting others to do. I don't see it as a maybe or might situation.
I know where you stand, I appreciate your attempts to have the conversation.
But, maybe and might are true things. I could plan a murder every day for 10 years and never commit it. Should I have been killed before I did anything worth dying over. If he is killed trying to arrest him that is one thing, but he was a citizen. Like it or not that should carry weight with the executive branch of gov't. No one feels sorry for the guy, for me it isn't about him as much as if this could happen to him who else could it happen to? I don't trust gov't officials with this kind of power, the constitution is there to protect us and limit gov't power. When you blatantly ignore it because of someone you don't like, that is trouble.
guilt or innocence of an American citizen is decided in a court of law, not in an oval office.
But if you were planning those murders here, there could be an attempt to arrest you. To me that is a distinction. The threats who have been eliminated in this fashion are hiding in places where we could not make a realistic attempt to apprehend them. I just don't see how we can leave them there to formulate their plans against us and take no action. I don't see how we realistically try and convict them short of a kangaroo court. I don't like trusting government officials with this much power either. I just don't see an alternative given the situation.
[
But if you were planning those murders here, there could be an attempt to arrest you. To me that is a distinction. The threats who have been eliminated in this fashion are hiding in places where we could not make a realistic attempt to apprehend them. I just don't see how we can leave them there to formulate their plans against us and take no action. I don't see how we realistically try and convict them short of a kangaroo court. I don't like trusting government officials with this much power either. I just don't see an alternative given the situation.
we are the great and powerful oz though...we have robots that roam the skies and can put a missile just about anywhere in the world within a few feet of where we want it to go and we can't make a reasonable attempt to apprehend them?
Even if I accept the premise that there is no other action that is possible, argue the facts in front of a judge. Try them in absentia. Do something other than have backroom discussions with cabinet members and secret kill lists that contain us citizens.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Jimmy V; I think most of us can agree with you that for today, if Drones are used to take out those plotting against us -- then our own flesh & blood soldiers are kept at harms length bay & this is good.
However, the alarms go off when we read about the vagueness behind what constitutes the use of ARMED DRONES. Those alarms are well-warranted.
Also, the other posters here are making the connection between what's vague today is no different than the scary what-ifs of tomorrow.
Killing people here or abroad with Drones can't be viewed any differently than blasting thru someones yard, thru house & over the people with tanks. To sanction this type of warfare, the edicts MUST come from verifiable proof of imminent threat plotting! Not vague what-ifs. We have a responsibility to keep the civility bar raised. A court of due process must not be discarded.
For me, this is NOT about whether we trust Obama or not. If we naively accept such vague Drone use today, then we plant one insidious power-tool in the hands of not just tomorrows president but military commanders, swat teams, sheriffs etc..for tomorrow. And, there WILL be abuses of this over-reaching form of control. This is historically -- a guarantee & turns those future scary what-ifs into something much more certain than the alleged what-if plot allegations going on today.
[
But if you were planning those murders here, there could be an attempt to arrest you. To me that is a distinction. The threats who have been eliminated in this fashion are hiding in places where we could not make a realistic attempt to apprehend them. I just don't see how we can leave them there to formulate their plans against us and take no action. I don't see how we realistically try and convict them short of a kangaroo court. I don't like trusting government officials with this much power either. I just don't see an alternative given the situation.
we are the great and powerful oz though...we have robots that roam the skies and can put a missile just about anywhere in the world within a few feet of where we want it to go and we can't make a reasonable attempt to apprehend them?
Even if I accept the premise that there is no other action that is possible, argue the facts in front of a judge. Try them in absentia. Do something other than have backroom discussions with cabinet members and secret kill lists that contain us citizens.
What would constitute a reasonable attempt? And once we had them, then what? How much intelligence gathering would be lost by describing it in open court? How much evidence would be deemed inadmissable because it was gathered covertly? While it may be ideal, I remain skeptical any of it is practical.
Jimmy V; I think most of us can agree with you that for today, if Drones are used to take out those plotting against us -- then our own flesh & blood soldiers are kept at harms length bay & this is good.
However, the alarms go off when we read about the vagueness behind what constitutes the use of ARMED DRONES. Those alarms are well-warranted.
Also, the other posters here are making the connection between what's vague today is no different than the scary what-ifs of tomorrow.
Killing people here or abroad with Drones can't be viewed any differently than blasting thru someones yard, thru house & over the people with tanks. To sanction this type of warfare, the edicts MUST come from verifiable proof of imminent threat plotting! Not vague what-ifs. We have a responsibility to keep the civility bar raised. A court of due process must not be discarded.
For me, this is NOT about whether we trust Obama or not. If we naively accept such vague Drone use today, then we plant one insidious power-tool in the hands of not just tomorrows president but military commanders, swat teams, sheriffs etc..for tomorrow. And, there WILL be abuses of this over-reaching form of control. This is historically -- a guarantee & turns those future scary what-ifs into something much more certain than the alleged what-if plot allegations going on today.
I'm sorry, I just cannot support not doing everything we can today because there might be an abuse tomorrow.
[
But if you were planning those murders here, there could be an attempt to arrest you. To me that is a distinction. The threats who have been eliminated in this fashion are hiding in places where we could not make a realistic attempt to apprehend them. I just don't see how we can leave them there to formulate their plans against us and take no action. I don't see how we realistically try and convict them short of a kangaroo court. I don't like trusting government officials with this much power either. I just don't see an alternative given the situation.
we are the great and powerful oz though...we have robots that roam the skies and can put a missile just about anywhere in the world within a few feet of where we want it to go and we can't make a reasonable attempt to apprehend them?
Even if I accept the premise that there is no other action that is possible, argue the facts in front of a judge. Try them in absentia. Do something other than have backroom discussions with cabinet members and secret kill lists that contain us citizens.
What would constitute a reasonable attempt? And once we had them, then what? How much intelligence gathering would be lost by describing it in open court? How much evidence would be deemed inadmissable because it was gathered covertly? While it may be ideal, I remain skeptical any of it is practical.
rendition is done all the time, we could capture them if we wanted to.
Doing everything we can should NEVER involve violating the rights of a citizen. You can't violate a constitutional right just a little bit...once that line is crossed there is no reason not to continue to cross it...if the patriot act weren't passed years ago, do you think we would even be having this conversation....this shit happens incrementally and it will only get worse.
I would rather not let it get worse before something is done about it
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
we are the great and powerful oz though...we have robots that roam the skies and can put a missile just about anywhere in the world within a few feet of where we want it to go and we can't make a reasonable attempt to apprehend them?
Even if I accept the premise that there is no other action that is possible, argue the facts in front of a judge. Try them in absentia. Do something other than have backroom discussions with cabinet members and secret kill lists that contain us citizens.
What would constitute a reasonable attempt? And once we had them, then what? How much intelligence gathering would be lost by describing it in open court? How much evidence would be deemed inadmissable because it was gathered covertly? While it may be ideal, I remain skeptical any of it is practical.
rendition is done all the time, we could capture them if we wanted to.
Doing everything we can should NEVER involve violating the rights of a citizen. You can't violate a constitutional right just a little bit...once that line is crossed there is no reason not to continue to cross it...if the patriot act weren't passed years ago, do you think we would even be having this conversation....this shit happens incrementally and it will only get worse.
I would rather not let it get worse before something is done about it
I am not so sure we could.
I do not know what the answer is. Maybe it will get worse, maybe it won't. Time will tell.
Jimmy V. I do understand your idea about taking care of what we can today, worry about tomorrow when it comes but with techno-monitoring tools just getting warmed up, once accepted — they become firmly entrenched not to easily be undone.
Drones, armed or not, is censorship. Here, we neively believe it's all about our safety. Abroad, we are hated for using them & there will be a backlash because of this.
Here's another bit of censorship passed onto me by a friend.
This letter is to advise you that Union Pacific will implement a Detection of System Access ("DSA")
program as a means to detect and deter potential violations of the Electronic Device Rule 2.21 . As you
know, this rule was implemented in response to the FRA's regulation aimed at reducing the safety risks
from railroad operating employees being distracted by the inappropriate use of electronic devices while
on duty. DSA provides TE& Y managers a report that identifies employees who have used a wireless
electronic device to access the internet while on duty.
Union Pacific is committed to protecting the safety of its employees and the public. DSA is a tool to
enhance safety by encouraging compliance with Rule 2.21 , which we all know is essential to safe
operations.
As I have said 'it's getting fairly crowded -- under the banner of safety'.
The monitoring of our every move, this free society, is taking on an appearance of one firmly entrenched, monitored society already. Tomorrows society is being set up for a police state existance. Honestly, the only way to counter these invasive trends is for the folks living right now to put up strong opposition, to promote a more individually responsible way to live and -- to require the same from our ruling duo: government & corporations.
Here is a question that crossed my mind last night. For those of you that are opposed to this, what bothers you about it more: That the President has ordered these attacks, or that the President has taken steps to make ordering these attacks legal?
Here is a question that crossed my mind last night. For those of you that are opposed to this, what bothers you about it more: That the President has ordered these attacks, or that the President has taken steps to make ordering these attacks legal?
that the concept of legality is even in the same discussion as an assassination of a US citizen. This president, or any president does not and should not have that power.
To try to justify it and make a legal case for it is disgusting and I expected better from a man who was against "torture" and wanted to close down Gitmo and try those people in a court of law.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Here is a question that crossed my mind last night. For those of you that are opposed to this, what bothers you about it more: That the President has ordered these attacks, or that the President has taken steps to make ordering these attacks legal?
Neither. Drones have become an assitive tool for war. That we have a president who uses this tool, & from here on out every president will most likely do the same, is simply a sign of the times—modern warfare.
That this tool should come under oversight guidlines is no different than setting Geneva convention parameters, the discipline our ground soldiers must conduct while engaging an enemy, or the extraction of intelligence from a prisoner, is simply another sign of the times—we are hashing out what is supposed to be modern civility standards.
My concerns are about what societal parameters WE are being asked to adapt to. Again, I will reiterate from my earlier post:
1) techno-monitoring tools just getting warmed up, once accepted — they become firmly entrenched not to easily be undone. This means we must consider what we are doing today -- for tomorrows "free society".
2) The use of Drones overseas is already fomenting a hatred for the US & retaliation is certain to be again, on tomorrows horizon. Do we honestly think Drone use on our own homefront won't come with a backlash? This will initiate a vicious cycle; more monitoring, more heavy-handed rulership—more police state existence, again for the near future of tomorrows people.
3) When we head down a road of more governed control, we won't learn to adapt towards an ever-more responsbile, peaceful society and this—is what I see as the gravest travesty of all.
Here is a question that crossed my mind last night. For those of you that are opposed to this, what bothers you about it more: That the President has ordered these attacks, or that the President has taken steps to make ordering these attacks legal?
Neither. Drones have become an assitive tool for war. That we have a president who uses this tool, & from here on out every president will most likely do the same, is simply a sign of the times—modern warfare.
That this tool should come under oversight guidlines is no different than setting Geneva convention parameters, the discipline our ground soldiers must conduct while engaging an enemy, or the extraction of intelligence from a prisoner, is simply another sign of the times—we are hashing out what is supposed to be modern civility standards.
My concerns are about what societal parameters WE are being asked to adapt to. Again, I will reiterate from my earlier post:
1) techno-monitoring tools just getting warmed up, once accepted — they become firmly entrenched not to easily be undone. This means we must consider what we are doing today -- for tomorrows "free society".
2) The use of Drones overseas is already fomenting a hatred for the US & retaliation is certain to be again, on tomorrows horizon. Do we honestly think Drone use on our own homefront won't come with a backlash? This will initiate a vicious cycle; more monitoring, more heavy-handed rulership—more police state existence, again for the near future of tomorrows people.
3) When we head down a road of more governed control, we won't learn to adapt towards an ever-more responsbile, peaceful society and this—is what I see as the gravest travesty of all.
This is an interesting take. So what you are saying (and correct me if I am wrong) is that for you it is not so much anything Obama has done in Yemen with drones so much as it is what those drones could be used for here in the US. Spying on citizens, intelligence gathering and such.
Here is a question that crossed my mind last night. For those of you that are opposed to this, what bothers you about it more: That the President has ordered these attacks, or that the President has taken steps to make ordering these attacks legal?
Neither. Drones have become an assitive tool for war. That we have a president who uses this tool, & from here on out every president will most likely do the same, is simply a sign of the times—modern warfare.
That this tool should come under oversight guidlines is no different than setting Geneva convention parameters, the discipline our ground soldiers must conduct while engaging an enemy, or the extraction of intelligence from a prisoner, is simply another sign of the times—we are hashing out what is supposed to be modern civility standards.
My concerns are about what societal parameters WE are being asked to adapt to. Again, I will reiterate from my earlier post:
1) techno-monitoring tools just getting warmed up, once accepted — they become firmly entrenched not to easily be undone. This means we must consider what we are doing today -- for tomorrows "free society".
2) The use of Drones overseas is already fomenting a hatred for the US & retaliation is certain to be again, on tomorrows horizon. Do we honestly think Drone use on our own homefront won't come with a backlash? This will initiate a vicious cycle; more monitoring, more heavy-handed rulership—more police state existence, again for the near future of tomorrows people.
3) When we head down a road of more governed control, we won't learn to adapt towards an ever-more responsbile, peaceful society and this—is what I see as the gravest travesty of all.
This is an interesting take. So what you are saying (and correct me if I am wrong) is that for you it is not so much anything Obama has done in Yemen with drones so much as it is what those drones could be used for here in the US. Spying on citizens, intelligence gathering and such.
Morning Jimmy. I'll try to give a better answer to my concerns.
Sure it bothers me what Drones are doing in the mideast. Bothers me more about why they are doing it; that we must even go down this road of terrorism & war to begin with.
My point is about what these uses today will usher in for tomorrow. Fear sells. "When a society is fearful, they will be more willing to sacrifce their freedom". (can't remember who said that) but it's at the center of how to control masses. Always.
Drones are just a begining in this new-day way to monitor & control us. Scensors, on-line brain-scanning & internet scensorship are all in the monitoring of our every move lineup. These to be heaped upon the already bulging heap of real-time audio & video monitoring currently going on. So for you Jimmy; when is enough enough?
And, what do you see happening to our near-future psychic once fully integrated in a fear-based, heavily-monitored not to be undone, way of existence?
And, how long do you think it will be before a demonic Hitler-type gets their hands on all these monitoring tools? So yes, this is something I'm far more fearful of then some bee-like Drones landing on my bedroom window to see what position I like best.
So for you Jimmy; when is enough enough?
And, what do you see happening to our near-future psychic once fully integrated in a fear-based, heavily-monitored not to be undone, way of existence?
And, how long do you think it will be before a demonic Hitler-type gets their hands on all these monitoring tools? So yes, this is something I'm far more fearful of then some bee-like Drones landing on my bedroom window to see what position I like best.
I have kind of just assumed that given the state of satellite technology the gov't could probable get a picture of me doing just about anything. So in that regard I really don't see the drones as anything new.
I really do not think the US is in any imminent danger of a demonic Hitler-type rising to power. Regardless of what sort of technology exists.
So for you Jimmy; when is enough enough?
And, what do you see happening to our near-future psychic once fully integrated in a fear-based, heavily-monitored not to be undone, way of existence?
And, how long do you think it will be before a demonic Hitler-type gets their hands on all these monitoring tools? So yes, this is something I'm far more fearful of then some bee-like Drones landing on my bedroom window to see what position I like best.
I have kind of just assumed that given the state of satellite technology the gov't could probable get a picture of me doing just about anything. So in that regard I really don't see the drones as anything new.
I really do not think the US is in any imminent danger of a demonic Hitler-type rising to power. Regardless of what sort of technology exists.
well,
Satellites come & go. What's going on in your bedroom isn't their stationary focus. Whereas, Drones can linger, take video right down to the pimple on yer ass, record all the sweet nothings you whisper in your lovers ear (to ensure that ear does not belong to the wife of another).
Honestly Jimmie, it's not just our trusty gov that will get their hands on the array of all these state-of the art eaves-dropping toys. Really, we need to move beyond 'what happens in our bedrooms should stay in our bedrooms.' This in itself is narcissistic. Concerned only that the polite wolf peering thru our front door might see us unclothed, might show the whole world just how boring our individual lives really are, merely deters our focus from the fact that we are leaving the back door wide open for the rest of the pack to slink thru.
A pack that once thru -- won't leave.
Do realize: control of the mass has always been one irresistible carrot to powermongers -- 'Regardless of what sort of technology exists.'
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Wish we could have killed Tim McVeigh before Oklahoma City.
Again, it is terrible that we now live in a country where these types of killings might be necessary but we do. I will not lose any sleep over this.
fair enough.
however, we went to war over faulty/wrong intelligence, death is final...what happens when they are wrong, is it murder or an unfortunate mistake
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Wish we could have killed Tim McVeigh before Oklahoma City.
Again, it is terrible that we now live in a country where these types of killings might be necessary but we do. I will not lose any sleep over this.
fair enough.
however, we went to war over faulty/wrong intelligence, death is final...what happens when they are wrong, is it murder or an unfortunate mistake
It could be either, both or neither depending on the circumstance. This is why we need to elect honest, qualified leaders. I understand that is easier said than done.
Wish we could have killed Tim McVeigh before Oklahoma City.
Again, it is terrible that we now live in a country where these types of killings might be necessary but we do. I will not lose any sleep over this.
Seriously? If they had uncovered his plan, you would've advocated killing him instead of...you know...arresting him and bringing him to trial? Sending a drone to murder him? Instead of charging him with a crime, arresting him, and putting him before a court?
Wish we could have killed Tim McVeigh before Oklahoma City.
Again, it is terrible that we now live in a country where these types of killings might be necessary but we do. I will not lose any sleep over this.
Seriously? If they had uncovered his plan, you would've advocated killing him instead of...you know...arresting him and bringing him to trial? Sending a drone to murder him? Instead of charging him with a crime, arresting him, and putting him before a court?
That has never been my point. If his plan had been uncovered with moments to spare, with no hope of assembling forces to stop him in time, yes, I would have rather he been killed than allowed to carry out his plans. Unpleasant but true.
That has never been my point. If his plan had been uncovered with moments to spare, with no hope of assembling forces to stop him in time, yes, I would have rather he been killed than allowed to carry out his plans. Unpleasant but true.
That is a one in a bazillion scenario that only happens on 24. Stop watching action movies and embrace due process.
That has never been my point. If his plan had been uncovered with moments to spare, with no hope of assembling forces to stop him in time, yes, I would have rather he been killed than allowed to carry out his plans. Unpleasant but true.
That is a one in a bazillion scenario that only happens on 24. Stop watching action movies and embrace due process.
That has never been my point. If his plan had been uncovered with moments to spare, with no hope of assembling forces to stop him in time, yes, I would have rather he been killed than allowed to carry out his plans. Unpleasant but true.
That is a one in a bazillion scenario that only happens on 24. Stop watching action movies and embrace due process.
OK. :roll:
Really, that's your response?
Yes. Read your post again and tell me if that's a reasonable way to discuss domestic security or a James Bond plot.
to be clear.. and I apologize if I missed this, I have not reall all the posts
but there are no Drone laws. A Drone is a weapon. The laws that apply to Drones are the same as those that apply to a soldier in the field with a hand gun. Right??
we may have a navy seal on a mission that results in a hand gun kill.. which, is governed by the same laws as those that apply to drones?
so the problme here is that the decision is being made by our elected officials, and those in positions to view all the evidence and make an informed decision, rahter than by some nameless soldier?
to be clear.. and I apologize if I missed this, I have not reall all the posts
but there are no Drone laws. A Drone is a weapon. The laws that apply to Drones are the same as those that apply to a soldier in the field with a hand gun. Right??
we may have a navy seal on a mission that results in a hand gun kill.. which, is governed by the same laws as those that apply to drones?
so the problme here is that the decision is being made by our elected officials, and those in positions to view all the evidence and make an informed decision, rahter than by some nameless soldier?
If you want a solid primer as to why people have a problem with our drone program, this article and the study it references are a great place to start:
so the problme here is that the decision is being made by our elected officials, and those in positions to view all the evidence and make an informed decision, rahter than by some nameless soldier?
It is about trusting those gov't officials to be judge jury and executioner of American citizens with a Drone, but a soldier would be the same thing. It just so happens that a drone was used to kill an American citizen so they are the weapon being discussed. Would you trust the Bush Administration with being able to make that decision?
Giving the president, or anyone in the gov't the ability to skirt the 4th amendment and eliminate due process for American citizens is not smart and it should terrify the American people that it is even being discussed as an option and defended by some of the people who were sworn to uphold the constitution.
And a soldier on the ground is in a much better position to pull or not pull a trigger, a drone obliterates the target and everyone close to them. Wouldn't you rather a soldier take out a person standing on top of a building instead of bringing the whole building down with who knows how many people inside?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Would you trust the Bush Administration with being able to make that decision?
Giving the president, or anyone in the gov't the ability to skirt the 4th amendment and eliminate due process for American citizens is not smart and it should terrify the American people that it is even being discussed as an option and defended by some of the people who were sworn to uphold the constitution.
The Bush point is a good one. I cannot say I would be enthusiastic to have him making these decisions. But, I also believe he was a poor choice by the American electorate. As I said earlier, it is up to us to elect qualified and trustworthy leaders.
I do think it should terrify us more that these kinds of strikes may be necessary. But as always you do make some good points.
so the problme here is that the decision is being made by our elected officials, and those in positions to view all the evidence and make an informed decision, rahter than by some nameless soldier?
It is about trusting those gov't officials to be judge jury and executioner of American citizens with a Drone, but a soldier would be the same thing. It just so happens that a drone was used to kill an American citizen so they are the weapon being discussed. Would you trust the Bush Administration with being able to make that decision?
Giving the president, or anyone in the gov't the ability to skirt the 4th amendment and eliminate due process for American citizens is not smart and it should terrify the American people that it is even being discussed as an option and defended by some of the people who were sworn to uphold the constitution.
And a soldier on the ground is in a much better position to pull or not pull a trigger, a drone obliterates the target and everyone close to them. Wouldn't you rather a soldier take out a person standing on top of a building instead of bringing the whole building down with who knows how many people inside?
I didn't trust Bush with much of anything at all. When we are at war, we do horrible things. I am very very happy with the Drone program and our new president. He is battling Al Qaeda with a fraction of the colateral damage and without insulting every muslim on the planet. No laws are being changed.. and nobody is killing American citizens. and citizenship is not a ticket to terrorize without fear of facing our most effective defense. sorry, I don't think our drone program is such a problem and these infractions are grossly exadurated in my opinion
Comments
But if you were planning those murders here, there could be an attempt to arrest you. To me that is a distinction. The threats who have been eliminated in this fashion are hiding in places where we could not make a realistic attempt to apprehend them. I just don't see how we can leave them there to formulate their plans against us and take no action. I don't see how we realistically try and convict them short of a kangaroo court. I don't like trusting government officials with this much power either. I just don't see an alternative given the situation.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
we are the great and powerful oz though...we have robots that roam the skies and can put a missile just about anywhere in the world within a few feet of where we want it to go and we can't make a reasonable attempt to apprehend them?
Even if I accept the premise that there is no other action that is possible, argue the facts in front of a judge. Try them in absentia. Do something other than have backroom discussions with cabinet members and secret kill lists that contain us citizens.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
However, the alarms go off when we read about the vagueness behind what constitutes the use of ARMED DRONES. Those alarms are well-warranted.
Also, the other posters here are making the connection between what's vague today is no different than the scary what-ifs of tomorrow.
Killing people here or abroad with Drones can't be viewed any differently than blasting thru someones yard, thru house & over the people with tanks. To sanction this type of warfare, the edicts MUST come from verifiable proof of imminent threat plotting! Not vague what-ifs. We have a responsibility to keep the civility bar raised. A court of due process must not be discarded.
For me, this is NOT about whether we trust Obama or not. If we naively accept such vague Drone use today, then we plant one insidious power-tool in the hands of not just tomorrows president but military commanders, swat teams, sheriffs etc..for tomorrow. And, there WILL be abuses of this over-reaching form of control. This is historically -- a guarantee & turns those future scary what-ifs into something much more certain than the alleged what-if plot allegations going on today.
What would constitute a reasonable attempt? And once we had them, then what? How much intelligence gathering would be lost by describing it in open court? How much evidence would be deemed inadmissable because it was gathered covertly? While it may be ideal, I remain skeptical any of it is practical.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I'm sorry, I just cannot support not doing everything we can today because there might be an abuse tomorrow.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
rendition is done all the time, we could capture them if we wanted to.
Doing everything we can should NEVER involve violating the rights of a citizen. You can't violate a constitutional right just a little bit...once that line is crossed there is no reason not to continue to cross it...if the patriot act weren't passed years ago, do you think we would even be having this conversation....this shit happens incrementally and it will only get worse.
I would rather not let it get worse before something is done about it
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I am not so sure we could.
I do not know what the answer is. Maybe it will get worse, maybe it won't. Time will tell.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Drones, armed or not, is censorship. Here, we neively believe it's all about our safety. Abroad, we are hated for using them & there will be a backlash because of this.
Here's another bit of censorship passed onto me by a friend.
This letter is to advise you that Union Pacific will implement a Detection of System Access ("DSA")
program as a means to detect and deter potential violations of the Electronic Device Rule 2.21 . As you
know, this rule was implemented in response to the FRA's regulation aimed at reducing the safety risks
from railroad operating employees being distracted by the inappropriate use of electronic devices while
on duty. DSA provides TE& Y managers a report that identifies employees who have used a wireless
electronic device to access the internet while on duty.
Union Pacific is committed to protecting the safety of its employees and the public. DSA is a tool to
enhance safety by encouraging compliance with Rule 2.21 , which we all know is essential to safe
operations.
As I have said 'it's getting fairly crowded -- under the banner of safety'.
The monitoring of our every move, this free society, is taking on an appearance of one firmly entrenched, monitored society already. Tomorrows society is being set up for a police state existance. Honestly, the only way to counter these invasive trends is for the folks living right now to put up strong opposition, to promote a more individually responsible way to live and -- to require the same from our ruling duo: government & corporations.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
that the concept of legality is even in the same discussion as an assassination of a US citizen. This president, or any president does not and should not have that power.
To try to justify it and make a legal case for it is disgusting and I expected better from a man who was against "torture" and wanted to close down Gitmo and try those people in a court of law.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Neither. Drones have become an assitive tool for war. That we have a president who uses this tool, & from here on out every president will most likely do the same, is simply a sign of the times—modern warfare.
That this tool should come under oversight guidlines is no different than setting Geneva convention parameters, the discipline our ground soldiers must conduct while engaging an enemy, or the extraction of intelligence from a prisoner, is simply another sign of the times—we are hashing out what is supposed to be modern civility standards.
My concerns are about what societal parameters WE are being asked to adapt to. Again, I will reiterate from my earlier post:
1) techno-monitoring tools just getting warmed up, once accepted — they become firmly entrenched not to easily be undone. This means we must consider what we are doing today -- for tomorrows "free society".
2) The use of Drones overseas is already fomenting a hatred for the US & retaliation is certain to be again, on tomorrows horizon. Do we honestly think Drone use on our own homefront won't come with a backlash? This will initiate a vicious cycle; more monitoring, more heavy-handed rulership—more police state existence, again for the near future of tomorrows people.
3) When we head down a road of more governed control, we won't learn to adapt towards an ever-more responsbile, peaceful society and this—is what I see as the gravest travesty of all.
This is an interesting take. So what you are saying (and correct me if I am wrong) is that for you it is not so much anything Obama has done in Yemen with drones so much as it is what those drones could be used for here in the US. Spying on citizens, intelligence gathering and such.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Morning Jimmy. I'll try to give a better answer to my concerns.
Sure it bothers me what Drones are doing in the mideast. Bothers me more about why they are doing it; that we must even go down this road of terrorism & war to begin with.
My point is about what these uses today will usher in for tomorrow. Fear sells. "When a society is fearful, they will be more willing to sacrifce their freedom". (can't remember who said that) but it's at the center of how to control masses. Always.
Drones are just a begining in this new-day way to monitor & control us. Scensors, on-line brain-scanning & internet scensorship are all in the monitoring of our every move lineup. These to be heaped upon the already bulging heap of real-time audio & video monitoring currently going on. So for you Jimmy; when is enough enough?
And, what do you see happening to our near-future psychic once fully integrated in a fear-based, heavily-monitored not to be undone, way of existence?
And, how long do you think it will be before a demonic Hitler-type gets their hands on all these monitoring tools? So yes, this is something I'm far more fearful of then some bee-like Drones landing on my bedroom window to see what position I like best.
I have kind of just assumed that given the state of satellite technology the gov't could probable get a picture of me doing just about anything. So in that regard I really don't see the drones as anything new.
I really do not think the US is in any imminent danger of a demonic Hitler-type rising to power. Regardless of what sort of technology exists.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
well,
Satellites come & go. What's going on in your bedroom isn't their stationary focus. Whereas, Drones can linger, take video right down to the pimple on yer ass, record all the sweet nothings you whisper in your lovers ear (to ensure that ear does not belong to the wife of another).
Honestly Jimmie, it's not just our trusty gov that will get their hands on the array of all these state-of the art eaves-dropping toys. Really, we need to move beyond 'what happens in our bedrooms should stay in our bedrooms.' This in itself is narcissistic. Concerned only that the polite wolf peering thru our front door might see us unclothed, might show the whole world just how boring our individual lives really are, merely deters our focus from the fact that we are leaving the back door wide open for the rest of the pack to slink thru.
A pack that once thru -- won't leave.
Do realize: control of the mass has always been one irresistible carrot to powermongers -- 'Regardless of what sort of technology exists.'
Wish we could have killed Tim McVeigh before Oklahoma City.
Again, it is terrible that we now live in a country where these types of killings might be necessary but we do. I will not lose any sleep over this.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
fair enough.
however, we went to war over faulty/wrong intelligence, death is final...what happens when they are wrong, is it murder or an unfortunate mistake
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It could be either, both or neither depending on the circumstance. This is why we need to elect honest, qualified leaders. I understand that is easier said than done.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Seriously? If they had uncovered his plan, you would've advocated killing him instead of...you know...arresting him and bringing him to trial? Sending a drone to murder him? Instead of charging him with a crime, arresting him, and putting him before a court?
That has never been my point. If his plan had been uncovered with moments to spare, with no hope of assembling forces to stop him in time, yes, I would have rather he been killed than allowed to carry out his plans. Unpleasant but true.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
That is a one in a bazillion scenario that only happens on 24. Stop watching action movies and embrace due process.
OK. :roll:
Really, that's your response?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Yes. Read your post again and tell me if that's a reasonable way to discuss domestic security or a James Bond plot.
but there are no Drone laws. A Drone is a weapon. The laws that apply to Drones are the same as those that apply to a soldier in the field with a hand gun. Right??
we may have a navy seal on a mission that results in a hand gun kill.. which, is governed by the same laws as those that apply to drones?
so the problme here is that the decision is being made by our elected officials, and those in positions to view all the evidence and make an informed decision, rahter than by some nameless soldier?
If you want a solid primer as to why people have a problem with our drone program, this article and the study it references are a great place to start:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... one-deaths
It is about trusting those gov't officials to be judge jury and executioner of American citizens with a Drone, but a soldier would be the same thing. It just so happens that a drone was used to kill an American citizen so they are the weapon being discussed. Would you trust the Bush Administration with being able to make that decision?
Giving the president, or anyone in the gov't the ability to skirt the 4th amendment and eliminate due process for American citizens is not smart and it should terrify the American people that it is even being discussed as an option and defended by some of the people who were sworn to uphold the constitution.
And a soldier on the ground is in a much better position to pull or not pull a trigger, a drone obliterates the target and everyone close to them. Wouldn't you rather a soldier take out a person standing on top of a building instead of bringing the whole building down with who knows how many people inside?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Oh, well, of course. I stand corrected. It is obviously unreasonable to disagree with your wisdom.
Really not your best showing here.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The Bush point is a good one. I cannot say I would be enthusiastic to have him making these decisions. But, I also believe he was a poor choice by the American electorate. As I said earlier, it is up to us to elect qualified and trustworthy leaders.
I do think it should terrify us more that these kinds of strikes may be necessary. But as always you do make some good points.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."