Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

Ikari said:

Well then there's your answer.

Click to expand...

Yup, and that's why a drone strike became necessary.

EagleAye said:

Yup, and that's why a drone strike became necessary.

Click to expand...

So the sovereignty of other nations is negligible according to you. Interesting take.

Ikari said:

So the sovereignty of other nations is negligible according to you. Interesting take.

Click to expand...

Well, don't you think the sovereignty of a nation becomes negligible when they harbor a criminal (terrorist) who plots and organizes attacks the sovereignty of another nation? We had plenty of intelligence that explained exactly where he was yet Yemeni authorities could only say "whoopsy, couldn't get him." Had they apprehended someone they "knew" was planning violations against US sovereignty and simply handed him over, then Yemeni sovereignty wouldn't be at issue, would it? There would be no need for drone attacks, would there?

Besides, Yemen should be used to this by now, given their patentable inability to capture terrorists on their own soil. Yemeni terrorists were violating Saudi Arabian sovereignty on a regular basis. Yemen, predictably, was completely ineffective at controlling the situation. So, predictably, Yemeni sovereignty was violated by Saudi Arabian airstrikes on terrorist bases that were extremely easy to find. When a country, quite obviously refuses to stop an internal threat from affecting other countries, they can hardly be surprised when other countries deal with the matter themselves.

EagleAye said:

Well, don't you think the sovereignty of a nation becomes negligible when they harbor a criminal (terrorist) who plots and organizes attacks the sovereignty of another nation

Click to expand...

I think you do not quite understand the concept of sovereignty.

Ikari said:

I think you do not quite understand the concept of sovereignty.

Click to expand...

Well, let's see if you do. If a Mafia boss, incarcerated in prison, decides he hates you for some reason, and plots the murder of your family and successfully orders their killing, is he immune from prosecution? I mean, he specifically did no harm to your family and never violated the sanctity of your home. Is he therefore innocent?

Ikari said:

I think you do not quite understand the concept of sovereignty.

Click to expand...

Who's violating sovereignty? It's well understood that the Yemen government and US are cooperating in conducting these strikes. The fact is the Yemen government has been waging its own bloody offensives against AQAP and related separatist movements in its southern provinces, which gained a foothold following the Arab Spring and the outsting of Saleh. President Hadi has openly voiced support of the US drone program. The Yemen government has been known to publicly take credit for attacks that were later shown to be US drone strikes.

Boo Radley said:

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.

Click to expand...

There is a procedure. As I've already said I'm ok with making that procedure a bit more transparent and formal. But it will never be perfect. Like Congress' declaration to go to war, it will always be a judgment call, vulnerable to the risk of being the wrong call.

the_recruit said:

There is a procedure. As I've already said I'm ok with making that procedure a bit more transparent and formal. But it will never be perfect. Like Congress' declaration to go to war, it will always be a judgment call, vulnerable to the risk of being the wrong call.

Click to expand...

Do you know when the last time congress declared war? This nation hasn't fought a declared war since before I was born and I am an old foggie.

Perotista said:

Do you know when the last time congress declared war? This nation hasn't fought a declared war since before I was born and I am an old foggie.

Click to expand...

Yes. That completely irrelevant tidbit of historical trivia was already brought up once in this thread.

the_recruit said:

There is a procedure. As I've already said I'm ok with making that procedure a bit more transparent and formal. But it will never be perfect. Like Congress' declaration to go to war, it will always be a judgment call, vulnerable to the risk of being the wrong call.

Click to expand...

Not a proper procedure. Every government and organization have procedures, but one that involves killing civilians in a country you are not at war with is not proper.

Boo Radley said:

Not a proper procedure. Every government and organization have procedures, but one that involves killing civilians in a country you are not at war with is not proper.

Click to expand...

And what if the leader of that country is providing the targeting data for the drones?

EagleAye said:

And what if the leader of that country is providing the targeting data for the drones?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Because a leader doesn't care about his or her people doesn't make us killing them any more moral or wise.

Boo Radley said:

Not a proper procedure. Every government and organization have procedures, but one that involves killing civilians in a country you are not at war with is not proper.

Click to expand...

We're going in circles here. Do you think it makes a damn bit of difference to collateral casualties whether the procedure was "proper"? This "proper" nonsense is a myth to make you feel better about taking the risk of collateral casualties. Granting Congress the power to declare war or the President the power to use military force for a limited time is in no way fundamentally different than granting the Pentagon the power to conduct air strikes. They ALL run the risk of unnecessary and unjustified deaths; it isn't unique to the way our drone program operates.

Boo Radley said:

Doesn't matter. Because a leader doesn't care about his or her people doesn't make us killing them any more moral or wise.

Click to expand...

:roll: Of course President Hadi is concerned about his people. Which is exactly why he's grateful for our air strike assistance in his battle against AQAP.

the_recruit said:

:roll: Of course President Hadi is concerned about his people. Which is exactly why he's grateful for our air strike assistance in his battle against AQAP.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure innocent people being killed really makes a people grateful. Nor does it endear any president to his people.

the_recruit said:

We're going in circles here. Do you think it makes a damn bit of difference to collateral casualties whether the procedure was "proper"? This "proper" nonsense is a myth to make you feel better about taking the risk of collateral casualties. Granting Congress the power to declare war or the President the power to use military force for a limited time is in no way fundamentally different than granting the Pentagon the power to conduct air strikes. They ALL run the risk of unnecessary and unjustified deaths; it isn't unique to the way our drone program operates.

Click to expand...

The question bin asked in tis thread is about whether it s proper or not. The question isn't whether we'll get away with it or not. I'm trying to answer that question.

Declaring war puts it into a proper on text, with proper moral and legal authority, with the people vested in the actions done in our name. We can then hold our elected officials more directly accountable.

Boo Radley said:

I'm not sure innocent people being killed really makes a people grateful. Nor does it endear any president to his people.

Click to expand...

Which is why Yemen's support of the program has been cautious and is not without conditions. Statistically drone strikes have become quite accurate, and most of the hysteria about collateral causalties is overblwon, especially compared to conventional air strikes. Publicly, the Yemen government is trying to downplay US involvement, since Yemenis already have pretty unfavorable opinions toward the US. But the fact of the matter is that we are not witnessing the widespread public backlash against the drone program in Yemen as we did in Pakistan. This is due largely to the violence and misery inflicted on the Yemeni people by AQAP. They want AQAP gone.

Boo Radley said:

Doesn't matter. Because a leader doesn't care about his or her people doesn't make us killing them any more moral or wise.

Click to expand...

Isn't it possible that the leader really is concerned about citizens? That he knows this murderer threatens the lives of hundreds of law-abiding citizens? Perhaps he's willing to trade the life of one murderer to save the lives of many who have harmed no one. This strict moral code you espouse, can easily be more amoral and more deadly than the drones you oppose. I suppose it's easy to criticize when you aren't actually responsible for the lives of citizens. People's idea of morality changes quite a bit when they live at the heart of a problem, and people close to them rely upon smart, not necessarily moral, decisions.

the_recruit said:

Which is why Yemen's support of the program has been cautious and is not without conditions. Statistically drone strikes have become quite accurate, and most of the hysteria about collateral causalties is overblwon, especially compared to conventional air strikes. Publicly, the Yemen government is trying to downplay US involvement, since Yemenis already have pretty unfavorable opinions toward the US. But the fact of the matter is that we are not witnessing the widespread public backlash against the drone program in Yemen as we did in Pakistan. This is due largely to the violence and misery inflicted on the Yemeni people by AQAP. They want AQAP gone.

Click to expand...

Not sure how you measure widespread, or how we KNOW how effective they really are. Didn't we start with the difficult if measuring that? I suspect we create more terrorist, more fighting against us than we kill. Nit sure we can measure that either. But force has been used for a long, long time in these things, and I think we can say with less than stellar results.

EagleAye said:

Isn't it possible that the leader really is concerned about citizens? That he knows this murderer threatens the lives of hundreds of law-abiding citizens? Perhaps he's willing to trade the life of one murderer to save the lives of many who have harmed no one. This strict moral code you espouse, can easily be more amoral and more deadly than the drones you oppose. I suppose it's easy to criticize when you aren't actually responsible for the lives of citizens. People's idea of morality changes quite a bit when they live at the heart of a problem, and people close to them rely upon smart, not necessarily moral, decisions.

Click to expand...

Less likely. Certain killing for maybe killing isn't really a good trade off. Btw, you don't take a job because no one can criticize. Odd how some pick and choose where criticism is allowed.

Boo Radley said:

Not sure how you measure widespread,

Click to expand...

It's not my observation, don't take my word for it.

The Drone Blowback Fallacy | Foreign Affairs

Boo Radley said:

or how we KNOW how effective they really are. Didn't we start with the difficult if measuring that?

Click to expand...

Know is a strong word that rarely applies to real life. But the most reliable, comprehensive data we have available shows that the strikes are very accurate.

The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

Obama's Covert War in Yemen | Drone Strikes in Yemen

Boo Radley said:

I suspect we create more terrorist, more fighting against us than we kill. Nit sure we can measure that either.

Click to expand...

And what data are you basing that on? Unsupported preconceived notions and bias, I would guess.

Boo Radley said:

But force has been used for a long, long time in these things, and I think we can say with less than stellar results.

Click to expand...

I find broad generalizations like that to be a terrible basis for policy. I think such generalizations are for lazy, poorly informed people who want a one-size-fits-all answer to the world's many, complicated problems. It's not that simple or easy.

the_recruit said:

It's not my observation, don't take my word for it.

The Drone Blowback Fallacy | Foreign Affairs



Know is a strong word that rarely applies to real life. But the most reliable, comprehensive data we have available shows that the strikes are very accurate.

The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

Obama's Covert War in Yemen | Drone Strikes in Yemen



And what data are you basing that on? Unsupported preconceived notions and bias, I would guess.



I find broad generalizations like that to be a terrible basis for policy. I think such generalizations are for lazy, poorly informed people who want a one-size-fits-all answer to the world's many, complicated problems. It's not that simple or easy.

Click to expand...

Taking anyone's word s often tricky:

Although its proponents promote drone warfare as more precise and effective than traditional counterterror measures, the death toll from drone attacks in Pakistan since 2004 hovers imprecisely between 1,500 and 2,500 people.3 The public is routinely assured that a high percentage of those extrajudicially killed are militants, but victims are often unnamed and deaths rarely investigated.4 The few successful drone attacks on high-profile targets seem to have mobilized existing networks of followers to conduct symbolic revenge attacks of comparable magnitude, like the December 2009 Khost bombing, which sought to avenge the drone killing of Beitullah Mehsud in Waziristan earlier that year. By extension, non-militants victimized by drone attacks directly or indirectly far outnumber targeted militants. Thus, a stream of new adversaries is produced in what is called the "accidental guerrilla" phenomenon.5

(Snip)

By the same token, the ongoing ambivalence of the Pakistani civilian and military leadership on the topic of U.S. drone strikes has fanned the flames of popular discontent in the country's fragile political system, revealing the infrastructure of contradictions in the roles of its military-intelligence sectors that simultaneously work with the United States and promote militant organizations. All these forms of blowback — the unintended consequences of policies not subjected to the scrutiny of the American public — complicate U.S. policy in the region and should be considered before drone warfare is expanded into the Arabian Peninsula and Africa.6

Middle East Policy Council | Drone Warfare: Blowback from the New American Way of War

However we can use a certain amount of logic that would support that dropping bombs in an area populated by civilians that there would be civilian causalities. It would also stand to reason that these deaths would result in some blowback, the only real question being how much.

And yes, know is a string word, but a word we must reasonably confront. What do we know and what don't we know, and what can we logically conclude. I reach a far amount base on the type of logic I assert above, often with information like I lined as evidence.

And generalizations, or a better word, history, can inform us. We are fatten asked to learn from history.

Boo Radley said:

Less likely. Certain killing for maybe killing isn't really a good trade off. Btw, you don't take a job because no one can criticize. Odd how some pick and choose where criticism is allowed.

Click to expand...

Well, "maybe killing" for someone who never has before, is not even remotely the same as "maybe killing" after killing masses before and planning to do so again.

And sorry, but we aren't discussing the quality of someone's dish washing. We're discussing how lives may be saved, and you're questioning the morality of preventing one from killing many.

EagleAye said:

Well, "maybe killing" for someone who never has before, is not even remotely the same as "maybe killing" after killing masses before and planning to do so again.

And sorry, but we aren't discussing the quality of someone's dish washing. We're discussing how lives may be saved, and you're questioning the morality of preventing one from killing many.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence I know of that lives are saved this way. In fact, evidence of when the British changed tactics is that less violence and more discrete efforts were more effective and not less. While there is some Chet puffing for high body counts, mother evidence doesn't support that this us a better solution overall.

Boo Radley said:

Taking anyone's word s often tricky:

Middle East Policy Council | Drone Warfare: Blowback from the New American Way of War

Click to expand...

That article was written two years ago. It was written to serve as a warning against the widespread use of drones in Yemen.

In the intervening two years, we have established a drone program in Yemen, and that warning has been shown to be unfounded. Which is exactly what I've stated and what my FA piece explains: we have not witnessed the sort of public outrage and blowback that we witnessed in Pakistan.

There are also some glaring errors in your article, namely the author's leap of faith from correlation to causation (a leap of faith, which, oddly the author points out she shouldn't be making, but goes ahead and makes it anyway) that suicide attacks increased from 2004-2009 that serves as the primary evidence for her blowback theory. :doh

Boo Radley said:

However we can use a certain amount of logic that would support that dropping bombs in an area populated by civilians that there would be civilian causalities. It would also stand to reason that these deaths would result in some blowback, the only real question being how much.

Click to expand...

In the case of Yemen, very little. For a variety of reasons.

Boo Radley said:

And yes, know is a string word, but a word we must reasonably confront. What do we know and what don't we know, and what can we logically conclude. I reach a far amount base on the type of logic I assert above, often with information like I lined as evidence.

And generalizations, or a better word, history, can inform us. We are fatten asked to learn from history.

Click to expand...

History is absolutely critical for informing policy decisions. A more nuanced, comprehensive understanding of history, not one based on broad inaccurate generalizations.