legal case for drones

mikepegg44

Abuskedti wrote:

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

nobody is killing American citizens.

yes they are

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... pture.html

I am very very happy with the Drone program and our new president.

he won't be president forever. What happens when the next guy justifies it to themselves...how are they held accountable for that decision?

sorry, I don't think our drone program is such a problem and these infractions are grossly exadurated

what source do you have that shows the claims of collateral damage and fear caused by drone strikes are grossly exaggerated? what source would you believe in regards to the collateral damage caused by drones?

There are plenty out there that show how indiscriminate a drone strike is. I am sure you think it is exaggerated, but that doesn't make it so. I believe I am worth a million dollars a year, but my paycheck would say otherwise...

How about we start ignoring the 1st amendment just a little...or the 6th amendment...we shouldn't give people a speedy and public jury trial if their crimes are bad enough...I mean everyone who is charged with a crime is guilty of everything the prosecution says...

Abuskedti

mikepegg44 wrote:

Abuskedti wrote:

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

nobody is killing American citizens.

yes they are

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... pture.html

I am very very happy with the Drone program and our new president.

he won't be president forever. What happens when the next guy justifies it to themselves...how are they held accountable for that decision?

sorry, I don't think our drone program is such a problem and these infractions are grossly exadurated

what source do you have that shows the claims of collateral damage and fear caused by drone strikes are grossly exaggerated? what source would you believe in regards to the collateral damage caused by drones?

There are plenty out there that show how indiscriminate a drone strike is. I am sure you think it is exaggerated, but that doesn't make it so. I believe I am worth a million dollars a year, but my paycheck would say otherwise...

How about we start ignoring the 1st amendment just a little...or the 6th amendment...we shouldn't give people a speedy and public jury trial if their crimes are bad enough...I mean everyone who is charged with a crime is guilty of everything the prosecution says...

sorry, I was not saying that collateral damage were exaggerated. I was saying these perceived assaults on the constitution are what I see as exaggerated. Sure there is collateral damage with drones.. but it is a tiny fraction of that caused by the preemptive invasion of Iraq or the years of war in Afghanistan.
I still say I don't see them changing anything.. Bush had our troops dropping bombs on all the brown people he could find.. surely there were thousands of Americans killed very many were colateral damange.. as he pummelled Bagdad night after night, there were some American Citizens living there. Bush didn't care to take the care, and investigate and attack the people who actually presented a threat... but He always had the right to do so. Obama has not expanded anything - all he has done, is defended our country in a much more humane and effective way. We can see what he is doing... with bush you'd have to dig through the millions of wounded, displaced and killed to find anyone.. and guess which of the thousands of days of thousands of bombs and millions of bullets the he order tossed about were really to blame for which

mikepegg44

Abuskedti wrote:

sorry, I was not saying that collateral damage were exaggerated.

gotcha, that makes sense.

Obama has not expanded anything - all he has done, is defended our country in a much more humane and effective way.

I would say that anytime you are using military force you are not being humane. But that is simply a matter of opinion we disagree on

We can see what he is doing...

In what way can we see what he is doing any more than we could with Bush? It isn't like he is coming out and talking about all the drone strikes and giving details about them...they do this shit in secret.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/blog/nat ... _festival/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -assassins

I just don't trust them to stop grabbing and justifying their grabs.

Abuskedti

mikepegg44 wrote:

Abuskedti wrote:

sorry, I was not saying that collateral damage were exaggerated.

gotcha, that makes sense.

Obama has not expanded anything - all he has done, is defended our country in a much more humane and effective way.

I would say that anytime you are using military force you are not being humane. But that is simply a matter of opinion we disagree on

We can see what he is doing...

In what way can we see what he is doing any more than we could with Bush? It isn't like he is coming out and talking about all the drone strikes and giving details about them...they do this shit in secret.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/blog/nat ... _festival/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -assassins

I just don't trust them to stop grabbing and justifying their grabs.

I agree with you on everything you say. it's just that this way seems far better to me than any other way it had been done before. Shall I say, less inhumane.

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

Oh, well, of course. I stand corrected. It is obviously unreasonable to disagree with your wisdom.

Really not your best showing here.

No, it's unreasonable to base your position on dreamt up narratives. You have to approach these issues like you're drawing up a law versus some one-in-a-billion exception. You seem like a good dude, but argue principles not parties.

dancepartner

I'm glad to see this thread resurrected.
Let us stand for one moment & try to take the image of any one commander-in-chief, and any partisan platform out of the picture (I'm thinking of the Rand Paul fillibuster thread that keeps getting hijacked) but yet, leave in all the insourmountable lessons history has tried to teach us.
Wouldn't it be prudent, wise even, for each and every educated, freer-than-ever mass, to solidify a built-in healthy wariness for all control issues as our most basic default?
Wouldn't prevention, rather than what til another round of the limitless what if's came 'round, truly be the best means in which to keep controlling entities under control?

Drowned Out

Disappointed (but not at all surprised) to see drone use being defended and advocated here.
Is this another case of american exceptionalism? Or is it ok for any/all countries to use drones on their own citizens, and other sovereign nations in the name of security?

also....do you guys STILL think you're at war with Al Qaeda? I thought everyone knew you were using them as proxies again....

Last-12-Exit

Drowned Out wrote:

Disappointed (but not at all surprised) to see drone use being defended and advocated here.
Is this another case of american exceptionalism? Or is it ok for any/all countries to use drones on their own citizens, and other sovereign nations in the name of security?

also....do you guys STILL think you're at war with Al Qaeda? I thought everyone knew you were using them as proxies again....

It's not just Al Qaeda. We are at war with any terrorist organization that plots to kill Americans. Al Qaeda is simply the most recognizable at this point.

Drowned Out

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

Disappointed (but not at all surprised) to see drone use being defended and advocated here.
Is this another case of american exceptionalism? Or is it ok for any/all countries to use drones on their own citizens, and other sovereign nations in the name of security?

also....do you guys STILL think you're at war with Al Qaeda? I thought everyone knew you were using them as proxies again....

It's not just Al Qaeda. We are at war with any terrorist organization that plots to kill Americans. Al Qaeda is simply the most recognizable at this point.

Well that's what the govt tells us, and is an opinion shared by many.....But the intent of my comment on al qaeda was to say you're not at war with any(certainly not every) terrorist organization that plots to kill americans. You're at war with whomever opposes your hegemony, and allied with whomever is willing to help you maintain it (including al qaeda - past and present).

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Oh, well, of course. I stand corrected. It is obviously unreasonable to disagree with your wisdom.

Really not your best showing here.

No, it's unreasonable to base your position on dreamt up narratives. You have to approach these issues like you're drawing up a law versus some one-in-a-billion exception. You seem like a good dude, but argue principles not parties.

The notion being put forth by many that this or any other President is about to use drones to rain missiles down upon an unsuspecting citizenry is about as dreampt up as it gets.

You cannot dictate how others approach issues. My point was that stopping McVeigh with a drone, regardless of his citizenship, was preferable to letting him carry out his mass murder. I stand by that 100%. To say that represents a one in a billion chance or an action movie plot, to me, is just not true. And a scenario such as that is the only way a drone strike like this would be used against an American citizen on American soil, despite the agenda some fearmongerers are trying to push.

If you think I am arguing in favor of a particular party then you you really misunderstand me.

Just one more thing we disagree on.

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

The notion being put forth by many that this or any other President is about to use drones to rain missiles down upon an unsuspecting citizenry is about as dreampt up as it gets.

You cannot dictate how others approach issues. My point was that stopping McVeigh with a drone, regardless of his citizenship, was preferable to letting him carry out his mass murder. I stand by that 100%. To say that represents a one in a billion chance or an action movie plot, to me, is just not true. And a scenario such as that is the only way a drone strike like this would be used against an American citizen on American soil, despite the agenda some fearmongerers are trying to push.

If you think I am arguing in favor of a particular party then you you really misunderstand me.

Just one more thing we disagree on.

You're right about my party comment not being fair...I'll certainly take that one back. As long as you understand that this issue isn't going away and there are bipartisan factions concerned with protecting civil liberties.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/11/h ... e-strikes/

even flow - question mark

As soon as some wedding party in the states gets mistaken for an al-q meet up and gets smoked, then and only then you will hear some tiny outpouring for how bad this really is.

Or a farmer who is sick of one buzzing around his crops, decides to take a pot shot or two at one of em and then just vanishes from the map.

So many good things can go right with these things.

JimmyV

even flow - question mark wrote:

As soon as some wedding party in the states gets mistaken for an al-q meet up and gets smoked, then and only then you will hear some tiny outpouring for how bad this really is.

Or a farmer who is sick of one buzzing around his crops, decides to take a pot shot or two at one of em and then just vanishes from the map.

So many good things can go right with these things.

But none of those things are happening or even about to happen. And there has already been widespread outpouring against this.

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

The notion being put forth by many that this or any other President is about to use drones to rain missiles down upon an unsuspecting citizenry is about as dreampt up as it gets.

You cannot dictate how others approach issues. My point was that stopping McVeigh with a drone, regardless of his citizenship, was preferable to letting him carry out his mass murder. I stand by that 100%. To say that represents a one in a billion chance or an action movie plot, to me, is just not true. And a scenario such as that is the only way a drone strike like this would be used against an American citizen on American soil, despite the agenda some fearmongerers are trying to push.

If you think I am arguing in favor of a particular party then you you really misunderstand me.

Just one more thing we disagree on.

You're right about my party comment not being fair...I'll certainly take that one back. As long as you understand that this issue isn't going away and there are bipartisan factions concerned with protecting civil liberties.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/11/h ... e-strikes/

Oh, its not going away. That is for sure. But grandstanding, shortsightedness, being wrong, and reactionary thinking have always been bipartisan problems. I know there are many who are legitimately concerned with the civil liberties aspect of this. Does that include everyone who signed the letter? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe there are not some on that list who have felt which way the winds of public opinion are blowing.

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

I know there are many who are legitimately concerned with the civil liberties aspect of this. Does that include everyone who signed the letter? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe there are not some on that list who have felt which way the winds of public opinion are blowing.

Certainly a fair point here. I don't know most of those Democratic congressmen, but I do know Rand Paul has been a staunch civil liberty advocate in the short time he's been in the Senate and I hope will continue to be. Funny thing on your fearmongering position: Did you know that you agree with Bill Kristol? Neat!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 06660.html

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

I know there are many who are legitimately concerned with the civil liberties aspect of this. Does that include everyone who signed the letter? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe there are not some on that list who have felt which way the winds of public opinion are blowing.

Certainly a fair point here. I don't know most of those Democratic congressmen, but I do know Rand Paul has been a staunch civil liberty advocate in the short time he's been in the Senate and I hope will continue to be. Funny thing on your fearmongering position: Did you know that you agree with Bill Kristol? Neat!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 06660.html

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Probably the only exception to that rule is Rush Limbaugh and he is currently entrenching himself in Senator Paul's corner.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... id/273938/