Let me preface this entire post by saying that I love America. This is not meant to be anti-american sentiment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21333570

So what is the deal with drones? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? This is an obvious civil rights abuse that needs to stop. How can "we" kill people without a fair trial?

Who gets to decide when someone is a sufficient threat that they should be killed using drones?

Does the person who makes this life or death decision for others actually answer to anyone? (this quesiton is kind of rhetorical, who they actually answer to is irrelevant).

The point made in the article posted above is laughable. It is supposed to be like "WHAAAAT oh no the US can now kill other Americans using drones WHAAAAT so crazy". How is this point suprising?

The fact that the US military kills civillians without a trial is horrible, regardless of what the victims nationality is.

These seemsl ike a giant step back for all of mankind in regards to justice IMO.

Did you mean to post this in politics? (or RGT random **** thread)

Naw I don't know anyone in politics, I would rather discuss here. I think there is sufficient RGT implications.

I thought discussion may go toward whether or not these attacks are justified and why.

Id prefer to keep it here if mods are cool with that.

edit: asdf what are your thoughts re drones?

Okay.

Such as?

Justified morally or politically?

I haven't formalized a position.

Post this in politics so that you can make politics friends so that in the future when you have a politics thread yu can post it with your politics friends.

But anyways, killing of American citizens without due process and merely by a fiat claim of association is very, very sketchy to me. It is the kind of thing that if bush did it, democrats would have at least six consecutive hernias. I don't want to categorically rule out all drone attacks ever, but I think there should be a substantial due process component and very strick standards. There is also a simple efficacy argument that using bad intel to inevitably slaughter innocent civilians in FATA, etc, results in pretty predictable blowback and anti-American sentiment that endures while the leaders hopefully killed are swiftly replaced.

Such as?

Is killing another person justified?

A) If so, under what circumstances?
B) If so, on what basis?

Justified morally or politically?

Morally

I haven't formalized a position

get formalizing darn you!

What do you mean by America?
Tell me about justice.

Edit: careful they don't take too kindly to stupid threads over there.

What's the moral difference between drones and planes with pilots dropping bombs on the same people ?

What do you mean by America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Tell me about justice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

these wikis probably explain better than me.

i agree with you. obama has probably killed numerous innocent people, which is awful.

but at least he hasn't killed as many innocent people as god.

obama > god

Well thats just a wiki page, not really a full rep of the country I don't think. There's a lot of bad things encompassed in America. Certainly a lot of good too, but it doesn't make sense to me someone would love something that encompasses all the bad things with the good.

Justice seems fairly religious to me. I saw religion in the definition, I'm not to good at sorting out its (religions) role though. Justice has a weird thing in that it assumes its valid doesn't it? Someone A does something wrong against a person B and so we enact justice towards A to satisfy B and the society that they live in? We might feel its our right to seek justice, I don't think Jesus would feel that way would he? I don't think that we should all be like Jesus but I think if one man can get beyond justice then perhaps we should look at it as a society.

Also if a rapist for example was sexually abused when they were a child, is it possible or correct to enact justice on this rapist?

I think I could handle for now locking this rapist up, but I don't think its fair to enact justice on them.

Do I misunderstand the concept?

Lemonzest, it seems to me that your moral philosophy doesn't allow you to condemn these attacks. You believe that anything is moral iff Yahweh commands it. Since you don't know if Yahweh commanded Obama to order these attacks or not, you have no a priori grounds to object.

QED?

I think the thing here is that these are not questions about drones. It isn't that they are not worthwhile things to talk about, an perhaps the dividing line that results from some philosophical discussion will work out to be right at drones. But these big picture questions are invariant under whether we are talking about snipers or f18s or drones or death penalty or omission of healthcare or whatever else. If I want to start a thread about drones, the implication is there is something special about drones outside of everything else the military does. But the questions you asked are too big for a thread on drones specifically.

Plus, doesnt the bible specifically say that governments are appointed by god and that you should obey them?

As a libertarian, I am against drones. Three cheers for Charlottesville:

http://www.dailypaul.com/273370/char...ent-spy-drones

When you dress for the enemy side, you are a legitimate target.

Any other policy would obviously lead to something an unconventional enemy would be able to gain great tactical advantage from. In this case by recruting more heavily in America and/or obtaining American citizenship for personnel and placing them at key locations - thereby blocking drone attacks.

Other than that drone attacks are effective, relatively cheap and you don't have to post pictures of dead soldiers in the media... aka how western countries lose wars.


Do civilians sometimes die? Yes. That isn't really an argument against drones. It is an argument against warfare.

I think the difference in my mind is when drones are used for arms length executions in countries that the US is not even in a state of war with (Pakistan).

These type of execution style killings many times (probably) don't even occur on the front lines of any battlefield. It is just some guy sitting in his house and he gets bombed.

The judicial and civil rights of these people is totally being trampled.
In the same way the sovereignty of these nations are trodden under foot.

I am suprised more people don't share this view.
Read a few articles on this.

Drones are not just being used as another instrument of war.
I don't have a problem with drones being used as another tool of war where the parameters of said war are already clear to all parties involved.

How does one execute an arrest warrant on someone who is actively and openly working within an enemy force? If we cannot physically bring them in for a trial, does that mean they get a free pass, all the while aiding and abetting the enemy with their very existance?

The military isn't exactly known for its transparency. How do we know that these executions are taking place within the pretext you set out above?

Is there accountability in place to ensure all those executed were in fact "criminal"?

The answer to that quesiton is a resounding, "No". There is no accountability in place AFAIK.

Does "working with an enemy force" always deserve death? right away?

Seems like a slippery slope IMO.

Execute an arrest warrant. Not execute, as in kill. Execute, as in serve. How does one serve an arrest warrant on someone who is within an enemy army?

If you can capture a traitor, fine. If not, just take them entirely out of the equation. Don't want to be killed on a battlefield by a drone, then don't be on the battlefield in the first place.

As far as crossing into a sovereign nation, if Pakistan didn't want US troops crossing the border to kill OBL's buddies, then maybe Pakistan shouldn't be looking the other way when OBL's buddies hang out in Pakistan.

Who exactly is the enemy?

Is this the problem? Are we having issues killing certain people in the midst of an entire enemy army?
But what if you live in Afghanistan, and you try to leave to America, but America won't let you in because of where you are from? Is it really fair to just make a country a battlefield and tell people its their fault for being there?
You don't really know anything about these countries do you?

Execute an arrest warrant. Not execute, as in kill. Execute, as in serve. How does one serve an arrest warrant on someone who is within an enemy army?

I don't know. But I don't think because it is difficult to arrest someone overseas that they should automitcally get executed. This logic seems flawed:

1. I want to arrest you
2. It is inconvenient/impossible to arrest you
3. I kill you instead of arresting you.

If you can capture a traitor, fine. If not, just take them entirely out of the equation. Don't want to be killed on a battlefield by a drone, then don't be on the battlefield in the first place.

This is my point. How do we know these people are traitors without a trial? If there is no accountability then anyone can be labelled a traitor.

Secondly, many of the people killed by drones are not on a battlefield. This is a large part of the problem IMO.

As far as crossing into a sovereign nation, if Pakistan didn't want US troops crossing the border to kill OBL's buddies, then maybe Pakistan shouldn't be looking the other way when OBL's buddies hang out in Pakistan.

I concede you have a point here.
I should add I am not necessarily against drone strikes altogether. What I take issue with is the unilateral action of the US gov't. IOW I am not against what is happening but rather HOW it is happening.

The lack of accountability and due process sets a a dangerous precedent.

This is horrible.

The administration has declared the entire world a battlefield. Essentially, they can really execute anyone anywhere without trial as long as they declare it was part of a war.

Seeing statements like the above justify the murder of civilians is morally reprehensible.