• 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 .
Ikari said:
Well that's the crux yeah? How is some jackass in Iraq a threat to us? Perchance if he were here...or even Canada; maybe. But less he has access to intercontinental missiles, he ain't got ****.
Click to expand...

Various ways. Maybe he or she is involved in planning attacks against us or our troops abroad. Maybe they're arranged to be active participants in an upcoming planned attack. Maybe they're involved in acquiring equipment and weapons to be used in attacks.

But I can't really say for sure. You'd have to ask the teams of intelligence and security analysts responsible for making the judgement, who, unlike you, are actually experienced and well-informed on such matters and who are actually privy to the intelligence details on which to make such judgements on a case by case basis.

:shrug:
 
Boo Radley said:
I think the question for him and myself is if we can trust this criteria and those making these decisions. There is evidence among what little we know that we have on occasion gotten it wrong. I don't pretend we know how often, but that too is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to more oversight or establishing a more formal set of rules which to follow. I rather like the idea of a "drone court", as long as it's fast and efficient (ie, unlike any of our other courts).
 
EagleAye said:
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.
Click to expand...

Senator to 'Hold' Nominee for CIA Director | The Weekly Standard

Senator Paul shares the concern of many Americans.

And yes, the apprehension of a terrorist in Yemen can pose extraordinary difficulties for the defense establishment. However, a precedent of killing American citizens, under the guise of the War on Terrorism, all without due process... is a bit much to be asked to accept. I all but realize that once precedent has been set, and policy formed, there will be more occurrences of these kinds: Americans abroad being killed by drones.

I'm not basing my viewpoint purely upon that problem, though. While I overwhelmingly support the aspect of keeping our troops out of danger, and minimizing their risks, I have questioned the usage of drones several times over the years. Like, specifically, when a 'top al-Qaeda member' is killed. Intelligence has been lost. No telling how much or what of. It sucks to say, but sometimes we have to send our guys in so we can apprehend those terrorists, even though we know that not all of them are going to come home safely, or for that matter, alive. It just seems like drones are lazy, tactically, in the way they've been used against senior al-Qaeda leadership. There are risks going the no-risk route.

Alternatively, turning my gaze back domestically, of course it is speculation on my part that drones in American skies could be armed and used against American citizens on American soil. I base my prognostication off the trends of today, US counterterrorism policy, the precedents of both having drones in our skies and the deaths of Americans abroad, and the doorway those two precedents have created in US counterterrorism policy. The available intelligence at each of our disposal points in that direction.

John Brennan's response will either exacerbate this growing conundrum for many Americans, or, it will alleviate it. We'll see.
 
I think they are no more morally questionable than other weapons used to kill people in other countries. At least fewer innocent people are killed this way, including our own troops.

However, I think we need to put a lot more scrutiny on our use of all our weapons in other countries that are no military threat to the US.
 
the_recruit said:
I'm not opposed to more oversight or establishing a more formal set of rules which to follow. I rather like the idea of a "drone court", as long as it's fast and efficient (ie, unlike any of our other courts).
Click to expand...

I think that would be a slight improvement, but still leaves open the ability to bomb an area of civilians in a country we are not at war with. This is bothersome to me.
 
the_recruit said:
Various ways. Maybe he or she is involved in planning attacks against us or our troops abroad. Maybe they're arranged to be active participants in an upcoming planned attack. Maybe they're involved in acquiring equipment and weapons to be used in attacks.

But I can't really say for sure. You'd have to ask the teams of intelligence and security analysts responsible for making the judgement, who, unlike you, are actually experienced and well-informed on such matters and who are actually privy to the intelligence details on which to make such judgements on a case by case basis.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Then they can prove their case well enough to get a warrant.
 
Jango said:
Senator to 'Hold' Nominee for CIA Director | The Weekly Standard

Senator Paul shares the concern of many Americans.

And yes, the apprehension of a terrorist in Yemen can pose extraordinary difficulties for the defense establishment. However, a precedent of killing American citizens, under the guise of the War on Terrorism, all without due process... is a bit much to be asked to accept. I all but realize that once precedent has been set, and policy formed, there will be more occurrences of these kinds: Americans abroad being killed by drones.

I'm not basing my viewpoint purely upon that problem, though. While I overwhelmingly support the aspect of keeping our troops out of danger, and minimizing their risks, I have questioned the usage of drones several times over the years. Like, specifically, when a 'top al-Qaeda member' is killed. Intelligence has been lost. No telling how much or what of. It sucks to say, but sometimes we have to send our guys in so we can apprehend those terrorists, even though we know that not all of them are going to come home safely, or for that matter, alive. It just seems like drones are lazy, tactically, in the way they've been used against senior al-Qaeda leadership. There are risks going the no-risk route.

Alternatively, turning my gaze back domestically, of course it is speculation on my part that drones in American skies could be armed and used against American citizens on American soil. I base my prognostication off the trends of today, US counterterrorism policy, the precedents of both having drones in our skies and the deaths of Americans abroad, and the doorway those two precedents have created in US counterterrorism policy. The available intelligence at each of our disposal points in that direction.

John Brennan's response will either exacerbate this growing conundrum for many Americans, or, it will alleviate it. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Consider that every year, there are roughly 400 American citizens "justifiably" killed by police officers. The people who were shot were not granted "due process" yet it is deemed "justifiable" and "legal." This has gone on for centuries within our legal system. It matters little whether this was performed with a 9mm Barretta, an AR-15, or MQ-1 Reaper drone. An American citizen was killed by employees of the government. We in the US have employed the precedent for our government's entire history, that it is sometimes necessary to kill a fellow citizen without due process. There are reasons why this must sometimes be done. Usually, it is when the suspect in question has become a serious threat to other citizens. Attempts to apprehend the suspect might delay action long enough to further endanger other citizens. In such situations lethal force is authorized. Sometimes this force is applied by beat cop, SWAT team member, and in the case of Yemen, Predator drone. Drone's are not setting a precedent, they are simply employing a very old precedent, in existence as long as we have had a nation.

That said, I do not support the idea of "armed" drones over US soil. Our law enforcement authorities have free reign to operate here and so I would expect authorities on the ground to make every effort to apprehend suspects alive and unharmed if possible. I do support un-armed drones for use by police forces. Police forces already use helicopters while attempting to locate suspects. Why would drones be any worse used in the same application? They would be cheaper to operate, require less skilled ground operators than helicopter pilots, and they would not place an extremely valuable pilot in harms way. I do not understand the resistance to this idea.
 
Ikari said:
Then they can prove their case well enough to get a warrant.
Click to expand...

First of all, which court has jurisdiction for granting warrants for Khyber Paktunkhwa?
 
Boo Radley said:
I think that would be a slight improvement, but still leaves open the ability to bomb an area of civilians in a country we are not at war with. This is bothersome to me.
Click to expand...

Bombing civilians is always bad and always a risk. Regardless of whether Congress has given its stamp of approval.
 
the_recruit said:
Bombing civilians is always bad and always a risk. Regardless of whether Congress has given its stamp of approval.
Click to expand...

Likely not something we should engage in absent being at war with a country.
 
Boo Radley said:
Likely not something we should engage in absent being at war with a country.
Click to expand...

It's not something we should engage in, ever - war or no.

Unless we have good reason to.
 
the_recruit said:
Not anymore than war is. It's a judgement call.
Click to expand...

Or a declaration from Congress....but whatever makes the excuses for your running to government easier.
 
Ikari said:
Exactly!
Click to expand...

Exactly?

You suggested they should "prove their case" and obtain a "warrant". What, specifically, did you mean by that? How does one go about "proving their case" and obtaining a "warrant"?
 
the_recruit said:
Exactly?

You suggested they should "prove their case" and obtain a "warrant". What, specifically, did you mean by that? How does one go about "proving their case" and obtaining a "warrant"?
Click to expand...

I mean that the State is restricted in the force that it can use against its citizens and if it wishes to elicit force against the free exercise of the rights and liberties of the individual, it must first prove it's case. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's what it means. Do you honestly need to be reminded?
 
Ikari said:
Or a declaration from Congress....but whatever makes the excuses for your running to government easier.
Click to expand...

Yes, Congress makes a judgement call on whether to go to war and kill lots of people.

If the judgement is "yes", that war-granting judgement is known officially as a Declaration of War.
 
the_recruit said:
Yes, Congress makes a judgement call on whether to go to war and kill lots of people.

If the judgement is "yes", that war-granting judgement is known officially as a Declaration of War.
Click to expand...

Which has not been issued since WWII
 
Ikari said:
I mean that the State is restricted in the force that it can use against its citizens and if it wishes to elicit force against the free exercise of the rights and liberties of the individual, it must first prove it's case. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's what it means. Do you honestly need to be reminded?
Click to expand...

And which court did you have in mind when you suggested they "prove their case" and obtain a "warrant"?
 
the_recruit said:
And which court did you have in mind when you suggested they "prove their case" and obtain a "warrant"?
Click to expand...

Our courts. Seek extradition if necessary.
 
the_recruit said:
Not anymore than war is. It's a judgement call.
Click to expand...

Yes, more. When you put in place a procedure, like congress declaring war, you limited the flexibility, which in this case s a good thing. Killing innocent civilians should be more difficult and not less.
 
Ikari said:
Our courts. Seek extradition if necessary.
Click to expand...

Did you really think we hadn't tried that?

(bold is mine)
SAN'A, Yemen (AP) — Yemen would not hand over a U.S.-born, Al Qaeda-linked cleric to the United States because the country's law bans extradition of its citizens, a Yemeni official said Tuesday.
[...]
High on the list of U.S. concerns is that al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, has used his fluent English and deep understanding of American culture to explain the philosophy of violent jihad to young Muslims in America and elsewhere in the West.

Members of al-Awlaki's tribe deny he is connected to Al Qaeda despite last month's video posting featuring his calls for killing of Americans. In the 45-minute video, al-Awlaki said U.S. deaths are justified and encouraged
Click to expand...
Yemen Says It Would Not Extradite Al-Qaeda-Linked Cleric Al-Awlaki to U.S. | Fox News

SANAA, Yemen, May 10 (UPI) -- Yemen will not extradite suspected terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to the United States if he is captured, Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi said.
Click to expand...
Yemen won't extradite Anwar al-Awlaki - UPI.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom