• 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!

White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes.

O

onestepfurther

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
16
Reaction score
2
Location
Southern AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes | Fox News

"Brennan's remarks amounted to both a defense and a public embrace of drone technology as the leading edge of the White House's clandestine war on terrorists from Yemen to Somalia.
Brennan says targets are chosen by weighing whether there is a way to capture the person against how much of a threat the person presents to Americans.
Targeting Al Qaeda members with lethal force by drones is legal, Brennan said, comparing it to targeting Japanese and German commanders in World War II.
He said use of drones was ethical because "only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and that civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted."
Brennan also called targeted strikes "wise," saying they kept both U.S. personnel out of harm's way, and that their precision munitions helped avoid civilian casualties caused by the kind of weapons dropped by jets. "

"Brennan's comments did not directly acknowledge the CIA's covert campaign in Pakistan, which has caused friction with the Pakistani government. Pakistan on Monday condemned a U.S. drone strike that killed three suspected Islamist militants in the northwest, the first since the country's parliament demanded that Washington end the attacks two weeks ago. In the past, Pakistan had publicly condemned strikes, but privately allowed them in specific geographic "boxes," namely in the tribal areas.
"We continue to believe, based on the information available, that the program itself is not just unlawful but dangerous," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. "It is dangerous to characterize the entire planet as a battlefield," Shamsi said.
A protester interrupted Brennan's remarks, shouting criticisms of the drone program. Her last words as she was dragged from the conference room by a security guard were "shame on you.""


Read more: White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes | Fox News


[FONT=[SIZE=4]
I really want to investigate just why the ACLU reckons targeted drone strikes are illegal. That they would oppose them is axiomatic, but I'm curious about their reasoning.​
[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
There is a significant defect in the current Drone War. It has no basis of legitimacy under either American or International law.
 
Meanwhile, water wet, sky blue, grass green.
 
onestepfurther said:
White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes | Fox News

"Brennan's remarks amounted to both a defense and a public embrace of drone technology as the leading edge of the White House's clandestine war on terrorists from Yemen to Somalia.
Brennan says targets are chosen by weighing whether there is a way to capture the person against how much of a threat the person presents to Americans.
Targeting Al Qaeda members with lethal force by drones is legal, Brennan said, comparing it to targeting Japanese and German commanders in World War II.
He said use of drones was ethical because "only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and that civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted."
Brennan also called targeted strikes "wise," saying they kept both U.S. personnel out of harm's way, and that their precision munitions helped avoid civilian casualties caused by the kind of weapons dropped by jets. "

"Brennan's comments did not directly acknowledge the CIA's covert campaign in Pakistan, which has caused friction with the Pakistani government. Pakistan on Monday condemned a U.S. drone strike that killed three suspected Islamist militants in the northwest, the first since the country's parliament demanded that Washington end the attacks two weeks ago. In the past, Pakistan had publicly condemned strikes, but privately allowed them in specific geographic "boxes," namely in the tribal areas.
"We continue to believe, based on the information available, that the program itself is not just unlawful but dangerous," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. "It is dangerous to characterize the entire planet as a battlefield," Shamsi said.
A protester interrupted Brennan's remarks, shouting criticisms of the drone program. Her last words as she was dragged from the conference room by a security guard were "shame on you.""


Read more: White House official confirms US carries out drone strikes | Fox News


[FONT=[SIZE=4]
I really want to investigate just why the ACLU reckons targeted drone strikes are illegal. That they would oppose them is axiomatic, but I'm curious about their reasoning.​
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...

Wow. So we can target whoever our government deems "the enemy" no matter where they are in the world. Downtown London? I guess so, since we don't have to declare war on a country in order to drone them. This doesn't sound right to me. I know we live in a different world now...I know terrorists hide in the hills...but this doesn't sound right.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
I guess there's no reason to be surprised any more. But the lack of a basis in law for the Drone War nevertheless makes those who ordered it war criminals.
Click to expand...

Oh god don't say that. It's about the only thing Obama has done that I have stood behind.
 
Why not use drones against gangs in US cities? I mean, if it's OK in other places because civilian casualties are at a minimum, wouldn't they be perfect to put an end to the Crips, the Bloods, the MS 13, all of the other violent gangs that infest every city and town in America?

That's a war too, right?
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Oh god don't say that. It's about the only thing Obama has done that I have stood behind.
Click to expand...

Any military program should have a basis in law if it is to have enduring legitimacy. Most people don't know that the Drone War isn't necessarily killing people American intelligence knows or identifies specifically. It's my understanding that the targets of the Drone War are now often selected through pattern recognition software which analyzes behavior.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Any military program should have a basis in law if it is to have enduring legitimacy. Most people don't know that the Drone War isn't necessarily killing people American intelligence knows or identifies specifically. It's my understanding that the targets of the Drone War are now often selected through pattern recognition software which analyzes behavior.
Click to expand...

Computer programs are deciding who to shoot?

now, that's really scary science fiction sort of stuff.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Any military program should have a basis in law if it is to have enduring legitimacy. Most people don't know that the Drone War isn't necessarily killing people American intelligence knows or identifies specifically. It's my understanding that the targets of the Drone War are now often selected through pattern recognition software which analyzes behavior.
Click to expand...

hm. evidence?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Computer programs are deciding who to shoot?

now, that's really scary science fiction sort of stuff.
Click to expand...

the only computerized shooting I am aware of offhand is the missile defense stuff, where you have to have a computer guide the missile in, because humans can't steer that fast.
 
cpwill said:
the only computerized shooting I am aware of offhand is the missile defense stuff, where you have to have a computer guide the missile in, because humans can't steer that fast.
Click to expand...

I still stay on top of alot of this and I believe you are correct.
 
MaggieD said:
Wow. So we can target whoever our government deems "the enemy" no matter where they are in the world. Downtown London? I guess so, since we don't have to declare war on a country in order to drone them. This doesn't sound right to me. I know we live in a different world now...I know terrorists hide in the hills...but this doesn't sound right.
Click to expand...

And who and what constitutes our government? Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that the administration has the power to act militarily whenever it wants without the approval of Congress as long as it has the approval of NATO or the legality of a UN security counclil resolution. The Committee was taken aback. However under the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 signed by President Truman he is correct. The President has the power to circumvent the US Congress and place our military under UN control whenever he sees fit. And Obama has proven by his actions in Libya that he will do so. However the Supreme Court ruled in Reid vs. Covert that treaties cannot override the constitution. The American media at the time was consumed with reporting on the republican's war on women....or maybe it was the perils of Seamus the Irish setter. Regardless, this news was deemed too inconsequential to burden the American public with so not many people are aware of it. Another Obama power grab.
********************************************************************************************************

Do you think you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria – without congressional approval?” asked Sen. Sessions.

“Our goal would be to seek international permission,” replied Panetta, adding – as if by way of patronizing afterthought – that “we would come to the Congress and inform you” about the progress of the unconstitutional onslaught against Syria. Once “legal permission” had been granted by NATO or “some kind of UN Security Council resolution,” he maintained, Obama wouldn’t need authorization from Congress.

“They provide no legal authority,” Sessions observed with more than a hint of exasperation coloring his voice. “The only legal authority to deploy the United States military is the Congress and the president … and the Constitution.”

Clinging tenaciously to his scripted talking points, Panetta replied that the Constitution entrusts the president with the authority to act in defense of the United States – a consideration that doesn’t apply in this case, since we have never been attacked nor threatened by Syria – but when the U.S. joins an international coalition, no congressional authorization is necessary: A permission slip from the UN or NATO will suffice
Sen. Sessions appeared to perceive the arrangement described by Panetta as an impediment to U.S. military action. The truth is exactly the opposite: Involvement in the United Nations has facilitated U.S. military adventurism by removing Congress – the body supposed to represent the people – from the equation. From its origins in World War II, the United Nations has always been a war-making entity, and U.S. involvement in it amounts to an open-ended declaration of war.

On December 20, 1945, Truman signed a measure entitled the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (UNPA), which effectively abolished Congress’s constitutional function in declaring war. Under the UNPA, the U.S. President can “negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council” concerning the use of American military personnel and facilities for UN “peacekeeping” and “peace enforcement” missions.
Panetta: UN Approval Adequate for Military Strike on Syria REPUBLIC MAGAZINE | THE VOICE OF THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
There is a significant defect in the current Drone War. It has no basis of legitimacy under either American or International law.
Click to expand...

If it saves american lives its legitimate to me...and they appear to be of value to us..
 
jerry7 said:
And who and what constitutes our government? Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that the administration has the power to act militarily whenever it wants without the approval of Congress as long as it has the approval of NATO or the legality of a UN security counclil resolution. The Committee was taken aback. However under the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 signed by President Truman he is correct. The President has the power to circumvent the US Congress and place our military under UN control whenever he sees fit. And Obama has proven by his actions in Libya that he will do so. However the Supreme Court ruled in Reid vs. Covert that treaties cannot override the constitution. The American media at the time was consumed with reporting on the republican's war on women....or maybe it was the perils of Seamus the Irish setter. Regardless, this news was deemed too inconsequential to burden the American public with so not many people are aware of it. Another Obama power grab.
********************************************************************************************************

Do you think you can act without Congress to initiate a no-fly zone in Syria – without congressional approval?” asked Sen. Sessions.

“Our goal would be to seek international permission,” replied Panetta, adding – as if by way of patronizing afterthought – that “we would come to the Congress and inform you” about the progress of the unconstitutional onslaught against Syria. Once “legal permission” had been granted by NATO or “some kind of UN Security Council resolution,” he maintained, Obama wouldn’t need authorization from Congress.

“They provide no legal authority,” Sessions observed with more than a hint of exasperation coloring his voice. “The only legal authority to deploy the United States military is the Congress and the president … and the Constitution.”

Clinging tenaciously to his scripted talking points, Panetta replied that the Constitution entrusts the president with the authority to act in defense of the United States – a consideration that doesn’t apply in this case, since we have never been attacked nor threatened by Syria – but when the U.S. joins an international coalition, no congressional authorization is necessary: A permission slip from the UN or NATO will suffice
Sen. Sessions appeared to perceive the arrangement described by Panetta as an impediment to U.S. military action. The truth is exactly the opposite: Involvement in the United Nations has facilitated U.S. military adventurism by removing Congress – the body supposed to represent the people – from the equation. From its origins in World War II, the United Nations has always been a war-making entity, and U.S. involvement in it amounts to an open-ended declaration of war.

On December 20, 1945, Truman signed a measure entitled the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (UNPA), which effectively abolished Congress’s constitutional function in declaring war. Under the UNPA, the U.S. President can “negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council” concerning the use of American military personnel and facilities for UN “peacekeeping” and “peace enforcement” missions.
Panetta: UN Approval Adequate for Military Strike on Syria REPUBLIC MAGAZINE | THE VOICE OF THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT
Click to expand...

The United Nations Participation Act (UNPA) (59 Stat. 619) provides the basic authority for U.S. participation as a member of the United Nations Organization. In particular, it is the authority for the president to apply economic and other sanctions against a target country or its nationals pursuant to mandatory decisions by the United Nations Security Council under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter. Until recently, this statutory authority was rarely invoked, but in current practice it has become a significant basis for U.S. economic sanctions.

Read more: United Nations Participation Act: Information from Answers.com
Click to expand...

I don't see anything there that authorizes the president to declare war under the authority of the UN or NATO. It seems to me that the Congress abrogated their responsibility to declare war when it allowed Lyndon Johnson to send half a million troops to war in Vietnam.

However it was done, it appears to me that the executive branch has been given, or has taken, powers that were not granted by the Constitution.
 
cpwill said:
hm. evidence?
Click to expand...

The Skynet capacity isn't what I'm referring to. I'm sorry I was unclear. However, in passing, Skynet has been invented and tested.

What I'm referring to is a way of war involving the continual presence of drones in the airspace of target countries picking up random activities, looking for patterns, processing data, and acting. People are still part of the process currently.
 
lpast said:
If it saves american lives its legitimate to me...and they appear to be of value to us..
Click to expand...

If so, it behooves America to clarify the matter of legal authority in order to broaden support for the drone program.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why not use drones against gangs in US cities? I mean, if it's OK in other places because civilian casualties are at a minimum, wouldn't they be perfect to put an end to the Crips, the Bloods, the MS 13, all of the other violent gangs that infest every city and town in America?

That's a war too, right?
Click to expand...

Hmmm. well, come ta think of it....
 
MaggieD said:
Wow. So we can target whoever our government deems "the enemy" no matter where they are in the world. Downtown London? I guess so, since we don't have to declare war on a country in order to drone them. This doesn't sound right to me. I know we live in a different world now...I know terrorists hide in the hills...but this doesn't sound right.
Click to expand...

Anywhere the Taliban terrorists find quarter is fair game to bomb in my opinion.

If the taliban move into your neighborhood, I suggest you do one of two things. Avoid them like the plague and get the hell out or shoot them yourself.

For as surely as one decides to collaborate, mingle, sympathize or give quarter to these bastards, that person becomes a part of the problem rather than part of the solution and therefore they can consider themselves collaterial damage when Uncle Sam comes to call. This goes for Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other rock these cockroaches try to hide under.

We shall search the four corners of the universe and hunt them down and kill them dead. They have no place in this world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom