legal case for drones
Comments
-
JimmyV wrote: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.0 -
dancepartner wrote:JimmyV wrote: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.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
JimmyV wrote:dancepartner wrote:JimmyV wrote: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.0 -
dancepartner wrote: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..."0 -
JimmyV wrote:dancepartner wrote: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 -
unsung wrote:
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..."0 -
JimmyV wrote:unsung wrote:
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 mistakethat’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 Rogan0 -
mikepegg44 wrote:JimmyV wrote:unsung wrote:
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.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
JimmyV wrote:unsung wrote:
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?0 -
pjl44 wrote:JimmyV wrote:unsung wrote:
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.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
JimmyV wrote:
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.0 -
pjl44 wrote:JimmyV wrote:
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?___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
JimmyV wrote:pjl44 wrote:JimmyV wrote:
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.0 -
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?0 -
Abuskedti wrote: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:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... one-deaths0 -
Abuskedti wrote: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 Rogan0 -
pjl44 wrote:
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..."0 -
mikepegg44 wrote: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.___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
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 opinionmikepegg44 wrote:Abuskedti wrote: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?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help