• 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 .
Thetexastrigger said:
As far as our government admits, we only hit our targets 3% of the time, the other 97% killing innocent people. These numbers seem to indicate that these strikes are not the "surgically accurate procedures" that Obama claims that they are. It feels like no matter which party holds the office, all that matters to them and the American people is that American innocents are not wrongfully murdered by these kinds of attacks. After all, its not like the U.S.'s own constitution says that "all men are created equal".

Pardon my sarcasm, but I find it kind of unsettling when I hear people decry injustice domestically while ignoring it abroad. A human life in Iraq is worth no less than one in the states, which is why I found it funny that Obama supposedly shed tears at the news of the Sandy hook shootings while he authorizes far greater massacres on a near monthly basis in Pakistan. Hypocracy without equal, I think.
Click to expand...

I am a little more pragmatic. If we have them, they are gonna get used on somebody and better them than us. I don't really condone how they seem to being used, but I am not going to condemn them on limited info either.
 
Geoist said:
I don't see our military and CIA as any less incompetent as the FBI at bringing a citizen into custody.
Click to expand...

I'm not following you.

My point is that the FBI doesn't have access to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, so I think the argument that it should be up to the FBI or police force to apprehend US citizens that are currently in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is rather silly.
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps you're missing that bombing domestically either way is wrong. You throw this in and you have to know that no where have I suggested what you do.
Click to expand...

Who said we were bombing domestically? The percentage of drones that have the capability (much less the mission) to carry ordinance is incredibly small.




I think, once again, you have stepped into the drone debate without fully understanding the topic you have chosen to discuss.
 
I have a problem with the assassination of US citizens without due process. I'd prefer to see public court hearings where their citizenship on grounds of treason is revoked first.

I think any spy efforts on US citizens violate the 4th amendment. I understand its need as it relates to the War on Terror however and simply say if the US citizen is shown not to be a threat, notify the citizen and turn over all copies of non-classified data on them to be destroyed at their request.
 
cpwill said:
Who said we were bombing domestically? The percentage of drones that have the capability (much less the mission) to carry ordinance is incredibly small.




I think, once again, you have stepped into the drone debate without fully understanding the topic you have chosen to discuss.
Click to expand...

The person I was responding to.

To those who say they don't want domestic drone use: It probably has, probably is, and definitely will happen.
So to me the question in that are would appear to be not "do we allow", but rather "how do we limit/regulate, if at all."
Click to expand...


However, no where did I say a thing about pilots versus drones. Why would you throw in something not argued?
 
Last edited:
Obama's killing 16 year old American citizens without judicial review, and claiming he can put people in jail indefinitely, again based on his say so alone, just shows how far liberals are willing to become fascists, rather than run the risk of daring to be called "racists."
 
Neither, they are pragmatic. I'd rather the US blow a few huts up then send 10,000 boots or even 10 SEALs to catch some guy in the middle of nowhere Pakistan. Cost > ideology at this point.
 
Hatuey said:
Neither, they are pragmatic. I'd rather the US blow a few huts up then send 10,000 boots or even 10 SEALs to catch some guy in the middle of nowhere Pakistan. Cost > ideology at this point.
Click to expand...
Put another way, one part of your ideology beats another part of your ideology.
 
The Mark said:
Put another way, one part of your ideology beats another part of your ideology.
Click to expand...

What part beats which part? If it were up to me - we'd do neither. However as it's painfully obvious that the US must conduct some of these missions, we as well take the pragmatic route and make it as cheap as possible.
 
Hatuey said:
What part beats which part? If it were up to me - we'd do neither. However as it's painfully obvious that the US must conduct some of these missions, we as well take the pragmatic route and make it as cheap as possible.
Click to expand...

It just appeared to me that the part of your ideology which would say "do neither" was trumped by the part that wants any such missions to be done as economically as possible, since they are going to happen whether you like it or not. Perhaps beaten and/or trumped is not the most apt term...

But then we all probably have views that conflict internally...
 
DaveFagan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I put "Yes, with explanation."

I'm fine with drone strikes against military targets.

But I'm not fine with drone strikes against suspects. Such things violate due process, as they are only suspects and not convicts.

I also don't think the executive branch should have the sole authority to determine which drone strikes are legitimate, except for against military targets. That's far too much power in the hands of the executive official.

And the power to determine the death of a man or a woman or a child without any check or balance in how that determination is made is the greatest step to tyranny there is.
 
Hatuey said:
Neither, they are pragmatic. I'd rather the US blow a few huts up then send 10,000 boots or even 10 SEALs to catch some guy in the middle of nowhere Pakistan. Cost > ideology at this point.
Click to expand...

Until foreign nations use the same policy against us or our allies.
 
Luna Tick said:
Signature strikes, not just no, but **** no. We're making wild guesses as to who we're hitting with these strikes and end up killing mainly innocent civilians. It's both immoral and a violation of international law.

Signature strikes are different from targeted strikes. In targeted ones, we know a specific terrorist is on the ground. Those I'm okay with provided the risk of civilian casualties is low.
Click to expand...

What do you think "signature" means in that term?
 
Boo Radley said:
The person I was responding to.
However, no where did I say a thing about pilots versus drones. Why would you throw in something not argued?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you will notice that nowhere in there does it say "bombing". The vast majority of drones are used for collections, not kinetic targeting. And the reason I throw in pilots is because the use of planes for domestic collection is already widespread. But now that we are talking about moving from expensive planes and pilots to relatively cheaper drones who perform the same function, you seem to feel that this is a problem.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah, you will notice that nowhere in there does it say "bombing". The vast majority of drones are used for collections, not kinetic targeting. And the reason I throw in pilots is because the use of planes for domestic collection is already widespread. But now that we are talking about moving from expensive planes and pilots to relatively cheaper drones who perform the same function, you seem to feel that this is a problem.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm 100% in favor of drones being used to collect intelligence, especially when the area they need to operate in is high-risk (read: they might get shot down).
 
The Mark said:
Personally, I'm 100% in favor of drones being used to collect intelligence, especially when the area they need to operate in is high-risk (read: they might get shot down).
Click to expand...

That's why our infantry companies have them now. If all you need is overview, then cheaper to send a drone that costs a few thousand than send a squad to recon by (taking) fire.
 
the_recruit said:
I'm not following you.

My point is that the FBI doesn't have access to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, so I think the argument that it should be up to the FBI or police force to apprehend US citizens that are currently in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is rather silly.
Click to expand...

When did I say the FBI or police force should apprehend US citizens in other countries? The CIA and military, on the other hand, have the power to do so (and have in the past).
 
Geoist said:
When did I say the FBI or police force should apprehend US citizens in other countries? The CIA and military, on the other hand, have the power to do so (and have in the past).
Click to expand...

When you contested my point that it shouldn't be left to domestic forces to apprehend citizens in hostile foreign countries, or so I assumed.
 
the_recruit said:
When you contested my point that it shouldn't be left to domestic forces to apprehend citizens in hostile foreign countries, or so I assumed.
Click to expand...

You originally contested the following statement I made:
"If the government suspects a citizen is a terrorist then they must be brought through the justice system."

My point was that a citizen can be apprehended by CIA or military and brought back to the US for prosecution. Never brought up FBI or local police forces.
 
The problem I have with the question is that it asks if it is "morally" acceptable. I don't believe that there has ever been a moral reason to kill anyone. That's not to say that those people shouldn't be killed, but to try and justify it as "moral" is just wrong.

My biggest problem with these drones is the collateral damage. Yea we got the one terrorist, but too bad we took out the entire wedding party.
 
Geoist said:
My point was that a citizen can be apprehended by CIA or military and brought back to the US for prosecution. Never brought up FBI or local police forces.
Click to expand...

What should be done when neither the CIA nor military troops are allowed to operate in a foreign country? What if no CIA assets are available there?
 
I voted no. Many things are not moral in Warfare. Assassinations and spying are not moral actions. I understand and support their necessity, but I will not sit here and say that they're 'moral actions'. Furthermore, I do not support or condone drone usage inside the United States, not at all. But... since sexy lady Erin Burnett has talked about targeting people like the man the LAPD are hunting on her show on CNN... the agenda for usage, armed drones, could be well underway since the federal government already has authorization to terminate, via drone, American citizens. Worrisome, indeed.
 
Jango said:
I voted no. Many things are not moral in Warfare. Assassinations and spying are not moral actions. I understand and support their necessity, but I will not sit here and say that they're 'moral actions'. Furthermore, I do not support or condone drone usage inside the United States, not at all. But... since sexy lady Erin Burnett has talked about targeting people like the man the LAPD are hunting on her show on CNN... the agenda for usage, armed drones, could be well underway since the federal government already has authorization to terminate, via drone, American citizens. Worrisome, indeed.
Click to expand...

Going after an American terrorist in Yemen is quite different from going after the same in the US. I doubt that drones would ever be armed over US soil. There's no reason for it. US police and FBI can operate freely here. So a drone need only identify where someone "is," and then domestic law enforcement can go get him. This was not possible in Yemen, so the rules were different.
 
Geoist said:
You originally contested the following statement I made:
"If the government suspects a citizen is a terrorist then they must be brought through the justice system."

My point was that a citizen can be apprehended by CIA or military and brought back to the US for prosecution. Never brought up FBI or local police forces.
Click to expand...

Well, apprehension in general is impossible in certain regions. Neither the FBI nor the CIA can waltz in there and casually handcuff someone. Which is why we resort to drone attacks and conventional air strikes in out-of-reach areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom