• 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 .
the_recruit said:
types%20of%20deaths%201-15-2013.jpg


The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

and

The Long War Journal - Charts on US Strikes in Pakistan
Click to expand...

Who put this together? How are we assured it is accurate?
 
cpwill said:
You have argued that if a single non-combatant dies then the strike is immoral, without qualification. You continue to dodge and avoid these questions, likely because answering them would force you to expose either yourself or your original argument as foolish.


But hey, prove me wrong :) :



So then is it your argument that reality DOES, in fact, present US Forces or Decision Makers with decisions where no matter what they choose, non-combatants will die?

You need to answer the question about whether or not these situations exist, and if the Answer is "No", then you need to answer:

So is it your argument that the enemy does NOT use human shields?

and if the answer is "Yes", then you need to answer:

So when faced with a situation where non-comatants will die regardless of the action taken, is it the moral decision to take the action that will net reduce the number of deaths?
Click to expand...

All you have to do is read. In the last post I spelled it fairly straightforward.
 
Geoist said:
If the government suspects a citizen is a terrorist then they must be brought through the justice system.
Click to expand...

That works well for citizens that are within reach of the FBI. What about citizens in hostile regions on foreign soil?
 
the_recruit said:
Click on the links. They're very open and explicit about their methodology and criteria.
Click to expand...

I read the first one. Uses news reports and makes assumptions about words used. I'm not convinced with this source.
 
Boo Radley said:
I read the first one. Uses news reports
Click to expand...

"The media outlets that New America relies upon are the three major international wire services (Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse), the leading Pakistani newspapers (Dawn, Express Times, The News, The Daily Times), leading South Asian and Middle Eastern TV networks (Geo TV and Al Jazeera), and Western media outlets with extensive reporting capabilities in Pakistan (CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph)."

Yes, that's right. They draw from a wide range of major international and regional news reports. What more reliable source would you suggest?


Boo Radley said:
and makes assumptions about words used.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's necessary when you're attempting to condense a large quantity of news reports from different languages into 3 columns of numbers. Their algorithms for interpreting the reports are completely open to the public. Their assumptions sound reasonable. Is it perfect? Of course not. But in the real world we don't get perfect information. You'd be hard pressed to find a more thorough and reliable study on drone casualties in AfPak.


Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced with this source.
Click to expand...

Of course you're not. You're convinced that our drone attacks are wantonly killing scores of innocent civilians and no amount of conflicting information will convince you otherwise. I challenge you to provide the data that has informed this assumption of yours.
 
the_recruit said:
"The media outlets that New America relies upon are the three major international wire services (Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse), the leading Pakistani newspapers (Dawn, Express Times, The News, The Daily Times), leading South Asian and Middle Eastern TV networks (Geo TV and Al Jazeera), and Western media outlets with extensive reporting capabilities in Pakistan (CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph)."

Yes, that's right. They draw from a wide range of major international and regional news reports. What more reliable source would you suggest?




Unfortunately that's necessary when you're attempting to condense a large quantity of news reports from different languages into 3 columns of numbers. Their algorithms for interpreting the reports are completely open to the public. Their assumptions sound reasonable. Is it perfect? Of course not. But in the real world we don't get perfect information. You'd be hard pressed to find a more thorough and reliable study on drone casualties in AfPak.




Of course you're not. You're convinced that our drone attacks are wantonly killing scores of innocent civilians and no amount of conflicting information will convince you otherwise. I challenge you to provide the data that has informed this assumption of yours.
Click to expand...

News sources have been depleted and don't have much out there doing this work. So, they are limited. The methodology also mentions, as I noted, assumptions about definition. And lastly, they admit a wide variance in reports.

I don't argue they are wrong, and my argument isn't related at all to number. He many if one or the other has never been the issue.

That said, we should be carful of accepting numbers out right.
 
the_recruit said:
That works well for citizens that are within reach of the FBI. What about citizens in hostile regions on foreign soil?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking about. The FBI is a strictly domestic agency. If a US citizen is (a terrorist and) in a foreign country, what are we supposed to do? Just say we're stuck, roll over, and give up?

I think drones are a far superior and far more accurate way of hitting the target we want and limiting or even eliminating collateral casualties. Perhaps it's not the drones that should be changed but maybe the ordinance. If we want to hit a single guy, a Hellfire and quite a bit of overkill. The 250 lb SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) is an excellent answer. The actual warhead is only 50 pounds of explosive. Easily enough to take out one bad guy and greatly limit the damage to the surrounding area.
 
Boo Radley said:
News sources have been depleted and don't have much out there doing this work. So, they are limited. The methodology also mentions, as I noted, assumptions about definition. And lastly, they admit a wide variance in reports.

I don't argue they are wrong, and my argument isn't related at all to number. He many if one or the other has never been the issue.

That said, we should be carful of accepting numbers out right.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's wise to take everything with a grain of salt. But at the end of the day policy decisions need to be made. We have to make do with the imperfect information we have available. The New America Foundation's study is the most comprehensive, objective study that currently exists (publicly) on the topic.
 
the_recruit said:
Sure, it's wise to take everything with a grain of salt. But at the end of the day policy decisions need to be made. We have to make do with the imperfect information we have available. The New America Foundation's study is the most comprehensive, objective study that currently exists (publicly) on the topic.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the study related to decision making that speaks to morality.
 
Boo Radley said:
All you have to do is read. In the last post I spelled it fairly straightforward.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You were asked:

cpwill said:
So then is it your argument that reality DOES, in fact, present US Forces or Decision Makers with decisions where no matter what they choose, non-combatants will die?

You need to answer the question about whether or not these situations exist, and if the Answer is "No", then you need to answer:

So is it your argument that the enemy does NOT use human shields?

and if the answer is "Yes", then you need to answer:

So when faced with a situation where non-comatants will die regardless of the action taken, is it the moral decision to take the action that will net reduce the number of deaths?
Click to expand...

and you responded:

Boo Radley said:
That is not what I've argued. Not remotely. I've argued that drone strikes, as we are running now, on civilian populations where we are at war with no country, in that context are immoral because they get more than the criminals they are after. You've tried to switch the argument to something else.
Click to expand...

Which in no way answered the question as to whether or not US decision makers ever faced decisions where action or inaction both led to the death of non-combatants, nor answered the follow-on questions about what they should do about it.
 
cpwill said:
No you didn't. You were asked:



and you responded:



Which in no way answered the question as to whether or not US decision makers ever faced decisions where action or inaction both led to the death of non-combatants, nor answered the follow-on questions about what they should do about it.
Click to expand...

Your question is a false question and not on point. I've noted that for you already. We don't have to be there. Those who attacked us could not have been stopped by drone strikes.
 
EagleAye said:
That's what I'm thinking about. The FBI is a strictly domestic agency. If a US citizen is (a terrorist and) in a foreign country, what are we supposed to do? Just say we're stuck, roll over, and give up?

I think drones are a far superior and far more accurate way of hitting the target we want and limiting or even eliminating collateral casualties. Perhaps it's not the drones that should be changed but maybe the ordinance. If we want to hit a single guy, a Hellfire and quite a bit of overkill. The 250 lb SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) is an excellent answer. The actual warhead is only 50 pounds of explosive. Easily enough to take out one bad guy and greatly limit the damage to the surrounding area.
Click to expand...

You are speaking about reality on the ground to people who are not interested in it. Better to go with the Big Scary Image. Like Assault Rifles With 30-Magazine Clips, ill-informed opinion trumps attempts to provide background, relevant definitions, or facts.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your question is a false question and not on point.
Click to expand...

The question is not one for two reasons:

1. You have stated that any strike in which any non-combatant is killed is immoral and "not surgical enough" and
2. US Decision makers face these kinds of situations. You don't get to just wish them away because they are inconvenient to you.

I've noted that for you already. We don't have to be there. Those who attacked us could not have been stopped by drone strikes.
Click to expand...

:roll: Because we didn't have drone strikes available in the 1990's, yes. However, those who are planning to attack us or others in the future certainly can be stopped by drone strikes.
 
Last edited:
However, it is nice to see that my predictions about how the left would switch from it's "Iraq War Bad Afghan War Good" fakery to "Afghan War Bad" have been fulfilled. It was always a poor fig leaf.
 
cpwill said:
The question is not one for two reasons:

1. You have stated that any strike in which any non-combatant is killed is immoral and "not surgical enough" and
2. US Decision makers face these kinds of situations. You don't get to just wish them away because they are inconvenient to you.



:roll: Because we didn't have drone strikes available in the 1990's, yes. However, those who are planning to attack us or others in the future certainly can be stopped by drone strikes.
Click to expand...

Not surgical enough for the situation we're talking about.

And no, because it wouldn't have stopped people who weren't there.
 
cpwill said:
However, it is nice to see that my predictions about how the left would switch from it's "Iraq War Bad Afghan War Good" fakery to "Afghan War Bad" have been fulfilled. It was always a poor fig leaf.
Click to expand...


First, I'm not "the left." Second, it's not about good or bad war, but methodology. There are concerns there, much more than was ever real in Iraq, but not something bet handled by drone strikes. Nor nation building a good idea.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not surgical enough for the situation we're talking about.
Click to expand...

Okedoke, Boo, when would you accept non-combatant deaths?

And no, because it wouldn't have stopped people who weren't there.
Click to expand...

Which is why you make sure that the "there" is "where the people who are planning and enabling attacks are". :roll: Do you think we are randomly bombing places?
 
cpwill said:
Okedoke, Boo, when would you accept non-combatant deaths?



Which is why you make sure that the "there" is "where the people who are planning and enabling attacks are". :roll: Do you think we are randomly bombing places?
Click to expand...

Nation against nation, where one nation is against another nation.

And as the there is everywhere, not really possible.

And I do think that like the information we got from al Libi under torture, and acted on, we very well could often THINK we know something we really didn't. It isn't like we've never been wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nation against nation, where one nation is against another nation.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So if a terrorist puts one person in a car bomb with him, and drives that car bomb at a crowd of 100 people, you would say that we should not engage the car and save the 100? Because the terrorist is not representing a nation?

Driving on, how in the world does a someone working on behalf of a nation vice a non-nation force alter the math of relative non-combatant casualties, relative military advantage gained, or the worth of the individuals around them? My children live in a house with a uniformed military member - does this mean that their lives are somehow worth less than your childrens' and are that they are therefore somehow "less concombatant"?

And as the there is everywhere, not really possible.
Click to expand...

Not really. The "there" is wherever these individuals happen to be. That's why they have Pattern of Life analysis done on them and their associated facilities. But, again, you don't know that, because you don't know what you are talking about.

And I do think that like the information we got from al Libi under torture, and acted on, we very well could often THINK we know something we really didn't. It isn't like we've never been wrong.
Click to expand...

No one is talking about enhanced interrogation in this thread, however, multiple CIA chiefs from both Democrat and Republican administrations have attested to its' value and the lives saved. But you are right, it's a judgement call.
 
cpwill said:
Interesting. So if a terrorist puts one person in a car bomb with him, and drives that car bomb at a crowd of 100 people, you would say that we should not engage the car and save the 100? Because the terrorist is not representing a nation?

Driving on, how in the world does a someone working on behalf of a nation vice a non-nation force alter the math of relative non-combatant casualties, relative military advantage gained, or the worth of the individuals around them? My children live in a house with a uniformed military member - does this mean that their lives are somehow worth less than your childrens' and are that they are therefore somehow "less concombatant"?



Not really. The "there" is wherever these individuals happen to be. That's why they have Pattern of Life analysis done on them and their associated facilities. But, again, you don't know that, because you don't know what you are talking about.



No one is talking about enhanced interrogation in this thread, however, multiple CIA chiefs from both Democrat and Republican administrations have attested to its' value and the lives saved. But you are right, it's a judgement call.
Click to expand...

That's not at all what I said. And no, there has been no proof torture has saved lives. You're too easily impressed by what SOME SAY.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's not at all what I said. And no, there has been no proof torture has saved lives. You're too easily impressed by what SOME SAY.
Click to expand...

when those some are uniform, come from both sides of the political aisle, and all have the access to know, yeah, in the absence of competing evidence, I tend to take their statements at face value.

But you aren't going to distract the thread.

So if a terrorist puts one person in a car bomb with him, and drives that car bomb at a crowd of 100 people, you would say that we should not engage the car and save the 100? Because the terrorist is not representing a nation, and therefore the non-combatants next to him cannot be moral collateral damage?
 
Das Sozialist said:
In my opinion, they're acceptable if used to defend your country. I don't agree with using them in countries we have no business being in (i.e. Yemen, Pakistan, etc.) but I'm fine with them being used in wars we're fighting.
Click to expand...

.... although wait until Iran uses them to assassinate one of their enemies, maybe an Iranian citizen, on US soil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom