• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

Are spy/assassinatin drones morally acceptable?


  • Total voters
    75
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.

Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.
 
Yes as long as it is not used domestically.
 
I have no problem with their use against terrorists, either foreign or domestic. Their use helps keeps for the most part American GI's out of harms way. Although there are times I wonder if the U.S. wouldn't benefit more if some of these targeted terrorist were captured for the intel they could provide. Risk and reward should be used to decide whether to go after the terrorist with a drone or to attempt to capture them.
 
If the Arabs are not killing each other fast enough, then the use of the drones is sorely needed. If they will cooperate with our policies and kill each other in great numbers and at higher rates of speed than usual, then the drones are a redundancy, but perhaps a needed one for the specific target that is stubbornly avoiding the crosshairs.

It seems a little odd that the Leftists who would shed crocodile tears for the imprisoned in Gitmo are silent on the execution absent due process for the assassinated Arabs and Islamists. Maybe only odd if one is to expect an even handed, apolitical approach to moral judgements.

There is a strange silence on the lack of due process and the incursion into sovereign states against whom we are not at war and against whom we impudently ply this crime.
 
I have no problem with their use against terrorists, either foreign or domestic. Their use helps keeps for the most part American GI's out of harms way. Although there are times I wonder if the U.S. wouldn't benefit more if some of these targeted terrorist were captured for the intel they could provide. Risk and reward should be used to decide whether to go after the terrorist with a drone or to attempt to capture them.

I didn't address the "domestic" issue and probably should have. The definition of a domestic terrorist can be pretty elusive and the potential for abuse/misuse by the political element is a complicated issue. The Gov't can usually manage to turn any issue "FUBAR." For that reason, I am opposed to domestic drones.
 
No, they shouldn't be used at all.

Too much collateral damage with them. I don't think it is worth it to kill innocent people for one terrorist. I do not like the idea of it at all.

Domestically, it is an abomination of our Constitutional Rights and a complete over reach of power by the government.
 
I didn't address the "domestic" issue and probably should have. The definition of a domestic terrorist can be pretty elusive and the potential for abuse/misuse by the political element is a complicated issue. The Gov't can usually manage to turn any issue "FUBAR." For that reason, I am opposed to domestic drones.

I understand that, a drone's use on domestic soil would have to occur under the right circumstances. But I wouldn't rule it out just because it is domestic soil. We Americans are a finicky bunch when it comes to security. If we see something that is considered heavy handed, use of too much power, we get all over the police or in this case, probably the military and the president who authorized it. But if the terrorist happens to escape and blows something up, those same Americans would be hollering and jumping up and down demanding to know why more force wasn’t used.
 
While I was in the service, I participated in a number of SAR missions in Vietnam - generally as an air controller. Some were successful, some were not. Anything which kills bad guys at no risk to american soldiers or airmen is OK with me. Yes, sometimes innocents pay a price. But that's been the nature of warfare since time began. I would argue that drones actually lessen the chances of civilian casualties as compared to other methods.

The only alternative is to let these vermin hide in their holes, safe from any threat. That is unacceptable.
 
I'm opposed to them because they WILL be used Domestically and I'm kind of big on that whole "every person deserves the right to a trial, innocent until proven guilty" thing.
 
I don't have a problem with them. I support assassinations if it means less battles will take place that result in civilian deaths.

I fully support drones and getting intelligence by using them.
 
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.

Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.
And who gets to decide who's a terrorist and who isn't? The CIA? The President? So they have "intel" from a "reliable source" that Akhmed McTerrorist is on Mohammed Lane. That means they should be able to destroy Mohammed Lane?

The amount of collateral damage is ridiculous, and there is usually no other proof that someone is a terrorist other than a bureacrat said he was. I'm sorry, I can't stand behind executions with zero trials or where no evidence is presented.
 
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.

Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.



What do you consider a proven terrorist?

Who'll give proof and when?

What if the proven terrorist is an American citizen? Was it proven in a court of law?

What kind of terrorist, I mean you've got operatives, ideologists, command, any or all are fair game?

I'm not saying I'm opposed to the use (except here in the States and against American citizens who haven't gone to trial) but these are just some of the questions that popped into my head
 
Yes as long as it is not used domestically.
I question under what circumstances a drone used against us by our own government would EVER be acceptable!

If another country used them against us, we would certainly retaliate! Perhaps if we quit meddling in other countries' affairs, we wouldn't have this problem, except for the occasional crackpot and his followers, who would certainly be dissuaded from ever doing it again.

We've been lucky, so far, but lately all I've been reading about is the increased likelihood of terrorist attacks on a major scale here in the US. Scary! :thumbdown
 
I see the utility but some of the implications do make me a little unconfortable.

As long as they are only being used overseas on known, proven terrorists who are already on the "shoot on sight" list, I can live with it.
 
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.

Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.

In my view, drones used as a weapon of assassination during a war and in a war zone are entirely acceptible. However, the President's use of drones in countries such as Pakistan and Yemen, countries that are supposedly or quasi-allies of the US are not acceptible, particularly when those countries have made it clear that they oppose the US use of drones in the sovereign territory.

In addition, I fail to see how Americans can march and petition to have GW Bush tried and convicted of war crimes for torture of detainees who clearly committed crimes against the US and yet cheer on Obama for the murder of hundreds of innocent people, many women and children, as collateral damage during a successful drone attack or those that mistakenly bomb the wrong target.
 
I question under what circumstances a drone used against us by our own government would EVER be acceptable!

If another country used them against us, we would certainly retaliate! Perhaps if we quit meddling in other countries' affairs, we wouldn't have this problem, except for the occasional crackpot and his followers, who would certainly be dissuaded from ever doing it again.

We've been lucky, so far, but lately all I've been reading about is the increased likelihood of terrorist attacks on a major scale here in the US. Scary! :thumbdown

FBI +ATF+Waco/Ruby Ridge. I wouldn't rule out they wouldn't try in that type scenario.
 
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.

Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.

If you mean drones that have someone's name on them....like Osama, for instance...I'm all for 'em. If a drone could've taken out Bin Laden instead of putting a SEAL team in jeopardy? YAYYYYY!!!!
 
I feel the drone program is a recipe for failure. We have this corporate model for international terrorism. If we eliminate the Board of Terror Inc. then we win. It doesn't work that way.

The blowback for using assassination is the civilian deaths with each strike is creating more terrorists instead of ending them. using 'untouchable' drones to fight our wars makes perfect sense to us but not to the rest of the world, especially the Muslims. To them we are craven and arrogant- the very things we say about Terrorist leaders using apt buldings to hide in.

I don't see the use of Hellfires in Detroit simply because we can put boots on the ground very quickly in the states. I do however see the Hellfire strikes being very sloppy overseas where the target overrides concerns for civilians... and the target doesn't need to be 100% verified.

All eliminating 'the board' does is put regional leaders, national leaders and cell leaders in the driver's seat. What Board directives does a local cell leader need to strike? A Corporate opinion from their legal department? A annual bonus to retain the best terrorists so they don't go to work for a rival?

Except for a smug sense of satisfaction I don't see a big upside to targeting the leadership with little if any regard for the civilians the USofA is supposed to be 'helping' by eliminating terrorists in their country.

Seems to me separating the people from the terrorists makes more sense than helping the terrorists recruit more suicide bombers.
 
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.

Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.


As long as the target has been proven to be a terrorist, no bystanders are taken out and we are at war with that country the terrorist is in I have no problem with assassination drones. I don't believe we should be sending drones into countries we are not at war with because it opens us up to some other country sending their drones into our country to assassinate key targets.
 
And who gets to decide who's a terrorist and who isn't? The CIA? The President? So they have "intel" from a "reliable source" that Akhmed McTerrorist is on Mohammed Lane. That means they should be able to destroy Mohammed Lane?

The amount of collateral damage is ridiculous, and there is usually no other proof that someone is a terrorist other than a bureacrat said he was. I'm sorry, I can't stand behind executions with zero trials or where no evidence is presented.

You have no idea whether the amount of collateral damage is 'ridiculous' or not. If you want to take a look at 'ridiculous' collateral damage, look at any German or Japanese city after World War II. That's collateral damage.
 
I understand that, a drone's use on domestic soil would have to occur under the right circumstances. But I wouldn't rule it out just because it is domestic soil. We Americans are a finicky bunch when it comes to security. If we see something that is considered heavy handed, use of too much power, we get all over the police or in this case, probably the military and the president who authorized it. But if the terrorist happens to escape and blows something up, those same Americans would be hollering and jumping up and down demanding to know why more force wasn’t used.

Not this American.
 
If the Arabs are not killing each other fast enough, then the use of the drones is sorely needed. If they will cooperate with our policies and kill each other in great numbers and at higher rates of speed than usual, then the drones are a redundancy, but perhaps a needed one for the specific target that is stubbornly avoiding the crosshairs.

It seems a little odd that the Leftists who would shed crocodile tears for the imprisoned in Gitmo are silent on the execution absent due process for the assassinated Arabs and Islamists. Maybe only odd if one is to expect an even handed, apolitical approach to moral judgements.

There is a strange silence on the lack of due process and the incursion into sovereign states against whom we are not at war and against whom we impudently ply this crime.

Maybe those "Leftists" aren't interested in having that conversation with someone so interested in how fast "the Arabs" are killing each other.
 
You have no idea whether the amount of collateral damage is 'ridiculous' or not. If you want to take a look at 'ridiculous' collateral damage, look at any German or Japanese city after World War II. That's collateral damage.

Ooo, so as long as we're not using nukes, there's no collateral damage to worry about? Most excellent!
 
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.

Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.

If they're going to kill a guy, they're going to kill the guy. Doesn't matter if it's done by a missile from a robot, or a bullet from a sniper's rifle. Now if you want to talk about the ethics of assassination, that's an entirely different topic altogether.
 
If they're going to kill a guy, they're going to kill the guy. Doesn't matter if it's done by a missile from a robot, or a bullet from a sniper's rifle. Now if you want to talk about the ethics of assassination, that's an entirely different topic altogether.

I think there's a difference. If you're going to invade a nation you haven't declared war on for the sole and express purpose of an extrajudicial execution, it seems to me like you should have some skin in the game. Using an unmanned robot doesn't qualify as skin.
 
Back
Top Bottom