I've never been clear on why it's worse to be killed by a missile launched from a drone rather than a manned aircraft (or a ship or a sub or a dude hired to put a bomb under your car or whatever.)
Also pretty opposed to those as well.
I've never been clear on why people who disagree with me on the policy of targeted killing always emphasize the 'flying death robots' part of my opposition to raining destruction upon our enemies with flying death robots. It always seems like a dodge.
Read what I was replying to?
I consider drone strikes to be a pretty serious civil rights failure of our generation, for example, and no one has gone to bat harder for those violations than the members of Obama's administration.
There is no mention of attacks in general.
Just drone strikes.
When someone says drone strikes and nothing else whatsoever my assumption is they are talking about drone strikes. Dunno about you.
Drone strikes are not a civil rights violation. They're a shitty foreign policy.
As applied, they are both! And I'm upset about both dimensions of it!
The analysis rightly starts with the fact that everyone has a basic right to live without being unjustly killed.
And we are unjustly killing an awful lot of people, and this fact is leading to counterproductive foreign policy results even if that is all that one wants to focus on.
Cause I don't see you acknowledging that anything but drones are used.
It's great that you do, in fact, realize this but your posts don't lead to that.
I've never been clear on why it's worse to be killed by a missile launched from a drone rather than a manned aircraft (or a ship or a sub or a dude hired to put a bomb under your car or whatever.)
Also pretty opposed to those as well.
I've never been clear on why people who disagree with me on the policy of targeted killing always emphasize the 'flying death robots' part of my opposition to raining destruction upon our enemies with flying death robots. It always seems like a dodge.
Read what I was replying to?
I consider drone strikes to be a pretty serious civil rights failure of our generation, for example, and no one has gone to bat harder for those violations than the members of Obama's administration.
There is no mention of attacks in general.
Just drone strikes.
When someone says drone strikes and nothing else whatsoever my assumption is they are talking about drone strikes. Dunno about you.
Okay.
Now mind replying to what I wrote? Or are we going to discuss the discussion of how the discussion of drone strikes started?
I am opposed to the Obama administration's (and past since it is longstanding) policy of targeted killing of individuals when other methods of bringing them to justice are available. They should abandon the policy of targeted killing and instead attempt to utilize the justice system and international agreements. It may take longer, but it is far preferable in a moral, legal, and geopolitical matter. Both now and when taking long term considerations into account as we are not the only country in the world that can blow things up.
You are complaining that I am not elaborating on why I think the drone program is bad.
Then you are complaining that I think there is something specifically wrong with the use of a drone in particular.
I've made it very clear that I have specific objections to the program, and I've never said the latter so I'll thank you to stop putting a strawman in my mouth.
If you will read that second post a little more closely, I say that my problem is with drone strikes "as applied" - those words mean "as currently used, as opposed to the mere fact of use."
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
That's a very barebones description of the the festering shitpile that is the Mumia case - for a good time, he was a cause celebre on the left (I can remember seeing Free Mumia signs when I was in college), where it was pushed that he was a political prisoner. There's also the fact that the Fraternal Order of Police was already pissed over the noninterference rules for CO/WA, and the Administration not talking to them about the nomination just provoked them further.
This comes back to the point I keep making with Hedgie's First Rule Of Politics: the goal of politics is to enact policy. And no, I'm not pissed at Adegbile - but I'm disappointed in the Administration for making such an unforced error, as the GOP was going to fight any appointment to this position tooth and nail, but they got a shiny bat to beat the Administration with thanks to this. And I'm further aggravated with the left, because it would be nice if they could be honest with themselves and acknowledge that, yes, this particular case is a festering shitpile, and they had a role in making it that way.
Who was 'responsible' for the Mumia case is just irrelevant to the principle that everyone here was articulating, namely, that attorneys are not only not responsible for the crimes of their clients, but rather are under a legal and ethical obligation to provide their clients with competent defense. Of course, Mumia was not even his client; he wrote some brief on his behalf. Taking that to be a reason to torpedo him is unprincipled, and, frankly, from a body composed mostly of lawyers, also ruthlessly dishonest--they know these things as much as anyone.
progressives treating mumia like a cause celebre were wrong and harmful
and the president nominating a candidate he knew would be opposed by law enforcement and would fail confirmation was a massive political error
i don't find anything wrong with adegbile's defense of mumia. it was his job.
+5
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I never said it was mysteriously worse to be killed by a drone than anything else, just that - again as applied - our drone program is violating rights on a large and undue scale by killing plainly innocent people very frequently. My objections have nothing to do with the fact that drones are being used instead of something else.
Rights are of course abrogated all the time when there is a sufficiently good reason to do so, but we're pretty far afield of having a sufficiently good reason that is being appropriately acted upon with how the administration has been running the drone program.
That's all entirely unrelated to the specific weapon being used, ie drones. We have killed loads of innocent people with bombing runs. If you want to be taken seriously then point out the issues about the actual policy you're upset about. Phoenix D points out valid problems with policy. You point at a decked out RC plane. Get rid of the drones and the policy still exists and is still a problem.
a worse problem, actually, since bombing runs have hundreds or thousands the expense and collateral damage costs
That's a very barebones description of the the festering shitpile that is the Mumia case - for a good time, he was a cause celebre on the left (I can remember seeing Free Mumia signs when I was in college), where it was pushed that he was a political prisoner. There's also the fact that the Fraternal Order of Police was already pissed over the noninterference rules for CO/WA, and the Administration not talking to them about the nomination just provoked them further.
This comes back to the point I keep making with Hedgie's First Rule Of Politics: the goal of politics is to enact policy. And no, I'm not pissed at Adegbile - but I'm disappointed in the Administration for making such an unforced error, as the GOP was going to fight any appointment to this position tooth and nail, but they got a shiny bat to beat the Administration with thanks to this. And I'm further aggravated with the left, because it would be nice if they could be honest with themselves and acknowledge that, yes, this particular case is a festering shitpile, and they had a role in making it that way.
Who was 'responsible' for the Mumia case is just irrelevant to the principle that everyone here was articulating, namely, that attorneys are not only not responsible for the crimes of their clients, but rather are under a legal and ethical obligation to provide their clients with competent defense. Of course, Mumia was not even his client; he wrote some brief on his behalf. Taking that to be a reason to torpedo him is unprincipled, and, frankly, from a body composed mostly of lawyers, also ruthlessly dishonest--they know these things as much as anyone.
progressives treating mumia like a cause celebre were wrong and harmful
and the president nominating a candidate he knew would be opposed by law enforcement and would fail confirmation was a massive political error
i don't find anything wrong with adegbile's defense of mumia. it was his job.
I'm pretty sure he didn't know that the appointment would fail otherwise he wouldn't have attempted to appoint him. After Reid killed the filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointees the appointment process seems like it should be far more straightforward now, and I would imagine the whip count ahead of time wasn't showing much more than some wavering.
This did wind up being a massive political error, and an unforced one. I just don't think the President is the one who made it. It was the 7 Democrats who voted nay (or, at least, the 2 of them who could have put it over the top) because they accepted the framing and took a defensive crouch.
U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.
[...]
The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.
So looks like ICANN will be transitioning to become even more like ISO. Which I figured was going to happen, but I'm kind of surprised it's happened as quickly as it did. Even with the NSA being horrible. I wonder how conservatives will respond to this mostly meaningless and symbolic change.
U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.
[...]
The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.
So looks like ICANN will be transitioning to become even more like ISO. Which I figured was going to happen, but I'm kind of surprised it's happened as quickly as it did. Even with the NSA being horrible. I wonder how conservatives will respond to this mostly meaningless and symbolic change.
You're wondering about the extent of their outrage over Obama's unconditional surrender to the UN and the imminent imposition of Agenda 21, right?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
In a fairly important change, the administration is imposing new regulations on the for profit college industry that's mostly grifting money from veterans.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
In a fairly important change, the administration is imposing new regulations on the for profit college industry that's mostly grifting money from veterans.
I would hope for this to be used to pull student loan access from a lot of low-quality law schools.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
I've never been clear on why it's worse to be killed by a missile launched from a drone rather than a manned aircraft (or a ship or a sub or a dude hired to put a bomb under your car or whatever.)
Also pretty opposed to those as well.
I've never been clear on why people who disagree with me on the policy of targeted killing always emphasize the 'flying death robots' part of my opposition to raining destruction upon our enemies with flying death robots. It always seems like a dodge.
Read what I was replying to?
I consider drone strikes to be a pretty serious civil rights failure of our generation, for example, and no one has gone to bat harder for those violations than the members of Obama's administration.
There is no mention of attacks in general.
Just drone strikes.
When someone says drone strikes and nothing else whatsoever my assumption is they are talking about drone strikes. Dunno about you.
Okay.
Now mind replying to what I wrote? Or are we going to discuss the discussion of how the discussion of drone strikes started?
I am opposed to the Obama administration's (and past since it is longstanding) policy of targeted killing of individuals when other methods of bringing them to justice are available. They should abandon the policy of targeted killing and instead attempt to utilize the justice system and international agreements. It may take longer, but it is far preferable in a moral, legal, and geopolitical matter. Both now and when taking long term considerations into account as we are not the only country in the world that can blow things up.
I already have responded to this general concept and made my stance clear. I'm getting the feeling you might not be reading this thread as thoroughly as you ought.
I think it is disingenuous to ignore the ways in which drone strikes differ in practice from other uses of force and the way these differences have made them worse than those. Actions by troops carry far greater risk and thus require far greater potential reward to be worth it. Strikes by traditional manned aircraft require a greater military investment. They are also far more transparent. The same is true of missile strikes.
The way in which drones can be deployed covertly to places we have no other military presence in and just hang around waiting for targets of opportunity to blow up makes them uniquely pervasive and harmful.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The real issue is claiming the legal right to kill anyone they want whenever and wherever they want. Yes I know governments have always done scummy vile things, but claiming that it's perfectly OK is an ominous development.
This has been the standard since forever. How can you not know this?
It's worse to be killed by a drone because flying death robots are scary and people are bad at critical thinking. The real problem those folks want to articulate is that there needs to be more oversight before the government decides to kill someone. A contributing factor among many people is likely that they want to specifically blame Obama for something, and lack of oversight when we want some dude dead is a problem that goes back decades, while heavy use of drones is an Obama thing.
I was under the impression that while killing people abroad may be nothing new, the drone program represents a remarkable scaling up of our assassination programs. The sheer number of people killed by drones in Yemen, Pakistan, and etc. is unlike anything we've done before--at least, anything we've done directly, as opposed to doing through friendly regimes / guerrilla groups, etc., though you can question the significance of that distinction. Anyhow, that has nothing to do with whether flying death robots deliver it, but does represent a novel and potentially alarming development.
If you don't agree that the distinction is significant then it doesn't represent a novel or alarming development. Our guns got better, the legal and ethical situation of nations killing people has not changed.
I think you need to add a "unilaterally asserted, with little or no evidence presented, no chance to contest, no accountability for mistakes" in there, and of course if we're going to talk about the "laws of war" don't you need an, erm war to be "quite literally" at war?
Yes that is how things happen in war. No one, in the history of war, has ever gotten anything better than "unilaterally asserted with little or no evidence presented"
I think it is disingenuous to ignore the ways in which planes differ in practice from other uses of force and the way these differences have made them worse than those. Actions by battalions carry far greater risk and thus require far greater potential reward to be worth it. Strikes by traditional massed infantry assault require a greater military investment. They are also far more transparent. The same is true of artillery strikes*.
The way in which planes can be deployed covertly to places we have no other military presence in and just hang around waiting for targets of opportunity to blow up makes them uniquely pervasive and harmful.
*the same is actually not true of cruise missiles but i kept this part in because why ruin the mood.
One of several novel issues presented by the current drone program is the infliction of this collateral damage on the civilians of a nation we are not at war against, as well as doing so with a weaker national interest in play.
Rather than articulating a particularly grave justification for war and then fighting that war against the sovereign nation that wronged us, we are unilaterally blowing up people within another nation's sovereign borders while at peace with that nation. Indeed, even while ostensibly allied with that nation and against their clear protest.
This is with no greater justification than a strong dislike of the targeted individual, yet often with the collateral harm that we normally reserve for a legitimate state of war.
I sincerely ask you to imagine that some larger and stronger country than America existed, and that while technically at peace with us it was nevertheless regularly blowing up individual targets inside our borders with significant collateral harm resulting.
Where's the distinction between that and how we're treating Pakistan? Where's the morally defensible distinction between what we are doing to Pakistan and the kind of terrorism that we are ostensibly discouraging? From a purely results-oriented perspective, aren't we cutting our nose off to spite our face by spurring on Al Qaeda recruitment faster than we're killing individuals? And is any of this the kind of novel precedent we want to set as a matter of either civil rights or foreign policy?
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
One of several novel issues presented by the current drone program is the infliction of this collateral damage on the civilians of a nation we are not at war against.
We've lobbed explosives into countries without being at war with them for decades. Because somehow it is supposed to increase our 'security' rather than undertaking far less deadly means to achieve similar results.
U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.
[...]
The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.
So looks like ICANN will be transitioning to become even more like ISO. Which I figured was going to happen, but I'm kind of surprised it's happened as quickly as it did. Even with the NSA being horrible. I wonder how conservatives will respond to this mostly meaningless and symbolic change.
You're wondering about the extent of their outrage over Obama's unconditional surrender to the UN and the imminent imposition of Agenda 21, right?
More the shape of it, really. Especially since they're going to be trying to scare people who don't understand what a domain name is.
U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.
[...]
The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.
So looks like ICANN will be transitioning to become even more like ISO. Which I figured was going to happen, but I'm kind of surprised it's happened as quickly as it did. Even with the NSA being horrible. I wonder how conservatives will respond to this mostly meaningless and symbolic change.
You're wondering about the extent of their outrage over Obama's unconditional surrender to the UN and the imminent imposition of Agenda 21, right?
More the shape of it, really. Especially since they're going to be trying to scare people who don't understand what a domain name is.
I'm pretty sure I nailed the shape of it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
One of several novel issues presented by the current drone program is the infliction of this collateral damage on the civilians of a nation we are not at war against.
We've lobbed explosives into countries without being at war with them for decades. Because somehow it is supposed to increase our 'security' rather than undertaking far less deadly means to achieve similar results.
I admit I'm not an expert on this history but isn't systematically doing so on a large scale novel?
IIRC, we tried to assassinate individuals with cruise missiles something like three times in history?
Likewise that we generally discontinued even attempting it owing to bad net results?
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
One of several novel issues presented by the current drone program is the infliction of this collateral damage on the civilians of a nation we are not at war against.
We've lobbed explosives into countries without being at war with them for decades. Because somehow it is supposed to increase our 'security' rather than undertaking far less deadly means to achieve similar results.
And in an unrelated coincidence... oh well, you know where this is going. I'm sure you're as capable of taking the Irish situation as an example as I am.
That's a very barebones description of the the festering shitpile that is the Mumia case - for a good time, he was a cause celebre on the left (I can remember seeing Free Mumia signs when I was in college), where it was pushed that he was a political prisoner. There's also the fact that the Fraternal Order of Police was already pissed over the noninterference rules for CO/WA, and the Administration not talking to them about the nomination just provoked them further.
This comes back to the point I keep making with Hedgie's First Rule Of Politics: the goal of politics is to enact policy. And no, I'm not pissed at Adegbile - but I'm disappointed in the Administration for making such an unforced error, as the GOP was going to fight any appointment to this position tooth and nail, but they got a shiny bat to beat the Administration with thanks to this. And I'm further aggravated with the left, because it would be nice if they could be honest with themselves and acknowledge that, yes, this particular case is a festering shitpile, and they had a role in making it that way.
Who was 'responsible' for the Mumia case is just irrelevant to the principle that everyone here was articulating, namely, that attorneys are not only not responsible for the crimes of their clients, but rather are under a legal and ethical obligation to provide their clients with competent defense. Of course, Mumia was not even his client; he wrote some brief on his behalf. Taking that to be a reason to torpedo him is unprincipled, and, frankly, from a body composed mostly of lawyers, also ruthlessly dishonest--they know these things as much as anyone.
progressives treating mumia like a cause celebre were wrong and harmful
and the president nominating a candidate he knew would be opposed by law enforcement and would fail confirmation was a massive political error
i don't find anything wrong with adegbile's defense of mumia. it was his job.
This I can understand and grudgingly agree with. Adegbile's nomination was perfectly moral/ethical/reasonable/whatever value system you want except it was pretty poor politics. I'm a little annoyed that a perfectly qualified candidate of the executives choosing is being denied because of politics but I'm willing to understand that's just the reality of what we have right now.
In the 1991 Gulf War, 288 Tomahawks were launched. The first salvo was fired by the cruiser USS San Jacinto on January 17, 1991. The attack submarines USS Pittsburgh and USS Louisville followed.
On 26 June 1993, 23 Tomahawks were fired at the Iraqi Intelligence Service's command and control center.
On 10 September 1995, the USS Normandy launched 13 Tomahawk missiles from the central Adriatic Sea against a key air defense radio relay tower in Bosnian Serb territory during Operation Deliberate Force.
On 3 September 1996, 44 cruise missiles between UGM-109 and B-52 launched AGM-86s, were fired at air defence targets in Southern Iraq.
On 20 August 1998, around 75 Tomahawk missiles were fired simultaneously to two separate target areas in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation to the bombings of American embassies by Al-Qaeda.
On 16 December 1998, Tomahawk missiles were fired at key Iraqi targets in during Operation Desert Fox.
In spring 1999, 218 Tomahawk missiles were fired by US ships and a British submarine during Operation Allied Force against key targets in Yugoslavia.
In October 2001, approximately 50 Tomahawk missiles struck targets in Afghanistan in the opening hours of Operation Enduring Freedom.
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, more than 725 tomahawk missiles were fired at key Iraqi targets.
On 17 December 2009, two Tomahawk missiles were fired at targets in Yemen. One of the targets was hit by a TLAM-D missile. The target was described as an 'alleged al-Qa’ida training camp' in al-Ma’jalah in al-Mahfad a region of the Abyan governorate of Yemen. Amnesty International reported that 55 people were killed in the attack, including 41 civilians (21 children, 14 women, and six men). The US and Yemen governments refused to confirm or deny involvement, but diplomatic cables released as part of Cablegate later confirmed the missile was fired by a US Navy ship.
On 19 March 2011, 124 Tomahawk missiles were fired by U.S. and British forces (112 US, 12 British) against at least 20 Libyan targets around Tripoli and Misrata. As of 22 March 2011, 159 UGM-109 were fired by US and UK ships against Libyan targets.
For as long as men aim to kill one another we will continue to refine our methods and ways in order to do it better. Drones are a new technology but old ideas. Large scale bombardment isn't a novel idea, it's been around for centuries: land, sea and air.
Take away drones and we'll bring F-117 nighthawks out of retirement, and use B-2 bombers or F-16/18/22/35's dropping much larger bombs. Remove air bombardment and you have naval ships firing missiles and lobbing shells. Remove naval bombardment and we'll just move artillery pieces closer and lob rocket assisted 155mm shells at people or use an MRLS and 'steel rain' an entire grid zone. Remove a howitzer, and we'll just get closer with mortars. Remove mortars, and we'll send in people with guns. Remove guns, and we'll use knives. Remove that, and we'll use sticks and rocks. Take away sticks and rocks and we'll go up to one another to kill them with our fists and feet.
If tomorrow we learned that we could harness and direct lightning strikes, you'd see the middle east grow green from all the rain, thunder and lightning we'd be sending that way. There's ideas about using kinetic rods to drop payloads on targets that would be equivalent to nuclear strikes without the radiation; or having hypersonic bombers that would be unmanned, can be anywhere in the world in a moments notice, dropping precision payloads on targets. Think drones if given steroids. We will never stop killing one another.
So the only thing that separates Obama from past presidents and/or future presidents is that Drones are being used and the Drone program currently resides in the hands of the CIA. Maybe one day it'll be handed over to the military, since why is our Intelligence agency orchestrating bombing campaigns; but it's not going to go away: newer, cheaper, smaller, and faster technologies will arise that will make drones obsolete, but until that day happens, drones are here to stay.
I think it is disingenuous to ignore the ways in which drone strikes differ in practice from other uses of force and the way these differences have made them worse than those. Actions by troops carry far greater risk and thus require far greater potential reward to be worth it. Strikes by traditional manned aircraft require a greater military investment. They are also far more transparent. The same is true of missile strikes.
The way in which drones can be deployed covertly to places we have no other military presence in and just hang around waiting for targets of opportunity to blow up makes them uniquely pervasive and harmful.
As opposed to, you know, jets. Or bombers. Or ships. Or submarines.
As has been pointed out drones are not doing anything we haven't done before. They're just receiving far more press because drone sounds scary. There's nothing at all wrong with opposing the general policy behind attacks against foreign citizens but the attempts to keep bringing drones up are asinine.
Please all of you stop arguing against straw men. The problem is obviously not the mere fact that a drone is a drone, but rather is how drones are being misused in practice. No one has said otherwise aside from the people interested in propping up straw men.
Outside of armed conflict zones, the use of lethal force is strictly limited by international law and, when it comes to U.S. citizens, the Constitution. Specifically, lethal force can be used only as a last resort against an imminent threat to life. Even in the context of an armed conflict against an armed group, the government may use lethal force only against individuals who are directly participating in hostilities against the U. S. Regardless of the context, whenever the government uses lethal force, it must take all possible steps to avoid harming civilian bystanders. These are not the standards that the executive branch is using.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Dude, it's not a straw man when your statement is about the drone program and what is wrong with it specifically. Nor is people providing you information when you yourself admit you aren't that familiar with America's history of killing people outside the country.
Frankly I don't get why you keep bringing up drones but then get upset when people talk about drones.
Dude, it's not a straw man when your statement is about the drone program and what is wrong with it specifically. Nor is people providing you information when you yourself admit you aren't that familiar with America's history of killing people outside the country.
Frankly I don't get why you keep bringing up drones but then get upset when people talk about drones.
I'm not upset, just disappointed.
The issue is whether targeted killings, as exemplified by the drone program, are good or bad.
I am disappointed that instead of engaging with that issue, you are still telling the people who disagree with you the same tired straw man - that they must just be afraid of drones, or else they must have been confused because drones get scary press coverage.
Each time you tilt at the same windmill instead of making a substantive answer, I am disappointed again.
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Dude, it's not a straw man when your statement is about the drone program and what is wrong with it specifically. Nor is people providing you information when you yourself admit you aren't that familiar with America's history of killing people outside the country.
Frankly I don't get why you keep bringing up drones but then get upset when people talk about drones.
I'm not upset, just disappointed.
The issue is whether targeted killings, as exemplified by the drone program, are good or bad.
I am disappointed that instead of engaging with that issue, you are still telling the people who disagree with you the same tired straw man - that they must just be afraid of drones, or else they must have been confused because drones get scary press coverage.
Each time you tilt at the same windmill instead of making a substantive answer, I am disappointed again.
Because you keep talking about drones. Not targeted killings.
Because if you actually talk about "should the US government attempt to assassinate foreign terrorist leaders?" then the answer most people will come up with is yes. Because it's a messy situation, but its entirely unreasonable to think we can actually arrest these people, and would be a ridiculously unnecessary threat to life to try to do so.
Because then you'd also have to acknowledge that an in-person arrest, in a foreign country, is likely to lead to quite a lot of collateral damage when said terrorist group decides to have a shoot out instead, and where we've now given them the opportunity to function, operate - and kind of importantly - gain combat experience against us.
It's pretty obvious that the program of assassination is largely focused in countries where operating a human intelligence network is difficult and cooperation with corrupt local authorities essentially impossible. We are not, for example, assassinating terrorist leaders in Europe or China generally. Whereas in Pakistan we have the issue that it's entirely unclear where the government ends, the Taliban begins, and a pretty big interest in ensuring we keep the right group of people in charge of the nukes.
EDIT: For example we're essentially involved in open hostilities with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Continually air-striking their leadership is exactly what you do in open warfare.
Now I'm sorry, @Evigilant, that edits and selective quotes seem to have muddied the waters, but my specific historical question was at least intended to be whether the United States has systematically, frequently engaged in the targeted killing of individuals with jets, missiles and bombs in the past.
This is my question because I keep hearing that we have always done this, and that if we didn't use drones then we would just use the stuff we used to use for the same job; with respect, your current list does not seem relevant to proving that.
I see predominantly full-fledged, legal wartime attacks along with some similar attacks that were, given one exigency or another, perhaps also legal under the traditional laws of war, international custom, etc.
But at a glance, none of them look at all like the sort of targeted killings in Pakistan that have been raising concern.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Dude, it's not a straw man when your statement is about the drone program and what is wrong with it specifically. Nor is people providing you information when you yourself admit you aren't that familiar with America's history of killing people outside the country.
Frankly I don't get why you keep bringing up drones but then get upset when people talk about drones.
I'm not upset, just disappointed.
The issue is whether targeted killings, as exemplified by the drone program, are good or bad.
I am disappointed that instead of engaging with that issue, you are still telling the people who disagree with you the same tired straw man - that they must just be afraid of drones, or else they must have been confused because drones get scary press coverage.
Each time you tilt at the same windmill instead of making a substantive answer, I am disappointed again.
I haven't done this. I have in fact said the opposite multiple times and that I wholly understand people against it and respect the opinion.
But every time you're supposedly gonna talk about how targeted killing is awful you instead open with stuff like "One of several novel issues presented by the current drone program is the infliction of this collateral damage on the civilians of a nation we are not at war against." You then apparently want no one to point out that this is blatantly false and declare anyone that does as missing your point and strawmanning.
If you want to talk about how targeted killings are bad do that. It's easily done without mentioning specific programs you've already admitted yourself you don't know much about.
Also? Phrases like this are ridiculously vague and ill defined. None of us know what you personally consider legal wartime attacks. America hasn't officiallybeen to war for decades.
What that means to you is a mystery since by your definition I guess it's legit to invade a country and slaughter thousands of innocents as collateral without ever declaring war but killing a few people is off the table. Which is just a bit of incongruity.
What that means to you is a mystery since by your definition I guess it's legit to invade a country and slaughter thousands of innocents as collateral without ever declaring war but killing a few people is off the table. Which is just a bit of incongruity.
Whether an act of war is legal or illegal is generally a fact that you can look up. There is no mystery here in my terminology.
I'm not sure on what basis you're making your two guesses but they look like parodies of things that I have said.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
I would argue that as long as one accepted the realities of the world we live in surgical strikes (whether executed by drone, tomahawk, seal team six, whatever) would be the preferred option in a sea of shitty choices.
Drones are just the tool. A tool that actually minimizes potential collateral damage when compared against other options on the table. So, an "anti-drone" position that fails to provide a viable alternative that further decreases collateral damage opportunities and/or increase effectiveness really is no position at all. To borrow a phrase already used in this thread: "You may as well be tilting at windmills."
Posts
Read what I was replying to?
There is no mention of attacks in general.
Just drone strikes.
When someone says drone strikes and nothing else whatsoever my assumption is they are talking about drone strikes. Dunno about you.
I elaborated on two specific objections a few short minutes later in my second post.
I have elaborated on other specific objections in other posts.
You are being ridiculous.
Christ, Quid.
In this post?
Cause I don't see you acknowledging that anything but drones are used.
It's great that you do, in fact, realize this but your posts don't lead to that.
Try not to get so defensive maybe?
Okay.
Now mind replying to what I wrote? Or are we going to discuss the discussion of how the discussion of drone strikes started?
I am opposed to the Obama administration's (and past since it is longstanding) policy of targeted killing of individuals when other methods of bringing them to justice are available. They should abandon the policy of targeted killing and instead attempt to utilize the justice system and international agreements. It may take longer, but it is far preferable in a moral, legal, and geopolitical matter. Both now and when taking long term considerations into account as we are not the only country in the world that can blow things up.
You are complaining that I am not elaborating on why I think the drone program is bad.
Then you are complaining that I think there is something specifically wrong with the use of a drone in particular.
I've made it very clear that I have specific objections to the program, and I've never said the latter so I'll thank you to stop putting a strawman in my mouth.
If you will read that second post a little more closely, I say that my problem is with drone strikes "as applied" - those words mean "as currently used, as opposed to the mere fact of use."
progressives treating mumia like a cause celebre were wrong and harmful
and the president nominating a candidate he knew would be opposed by law enforcement and would fail confirmation was a massive political error
i don't find anything wrong with adegbile's defense of mumia. it was his job.
a worse problem, actually, since bombing runs have hundreds or thousands the expense and collateral damage costs
I'm pretty sure he didn't know that the appointment would fail otherwise he wouldn't have attempted to appoint him. After Reid killed the filibuster for non-SCOTUS appointees the appointment process seems like it should be far more straightforward now, and I would imagine the whip count ahead of time wasn't showing much more than some wavering.
This did wind up being a massive political error, and an unforced one. I just don't think the President is the one who made it. It was the 7 Democrats who voted nay (or, at least, the 2 of them who could have put it over the top) because they accepted the framing and took a defensive crouch.
And now they're going to be running against ads with Obama and his cop-killer appointee's anyway, but without even having the office staffed.
Someday, Democrats will learn this lesson. You would think.
So looks like ICANN will be transitioning to become even more like ISO. Which I figured was going to happen, but I'm kind of surprised it's happened as quickly as it did. Even with the NSA being horrible. I wonder how conservatives will respond to this mostly meaningless and symbolic change.
You're wondering about the extent of their outrage over Obama's unconditional surrender to the UN and the imminent imposition of Agenda 21, right?
I would hope for this to be used to pull student loan access from a lot of low-quality law schools.
I already have responded to this general concept and made my stance clear. I'm getting the feeling you might not be reading this thread as thoroughly as you ought.
The way in which drones can be deployed covertly to places we have no other military presence in and just hang around waiting for targets of opportunity to blow up makes them uniquely pervasive and harmful.
This has been the standard since forever. How can you not know this?
If you don't agree that the distinction is significant then it doesn't represent a novel or alarming development. Our guns got better, the legal and ethical situation of nations killing people has not changed.
Yes that is how things happen in war. No one, in the history of war, has ever gotten anything better than "unilaterally asserted with little or no evidence presented"
*the same is actually not true of cruise missiles but i kept this part in because why ruin the mood.
Rather than articulating a particularly grave justification for war and then fighting that war against the sovereign nation that wronged us, we are unilaterally blowing up people within another nation's sovereign borders while at peace with that nation. Indeed, even while ostensibly allied with that nation and against their clear protest.
This is with no greater justification than a strong dislike of the targeted individual, yet often with the collateral harm that we normally reserve for a legitimate state of war.
I sincerely ask you to imagine that some larger and stronger country than America existed, and that while technically at peace with us it was nevertheless regularly blowing up individual targets inside our borders with significant collateral harm resulting.
Where's the distinction between that and how we're treating Pakistan? Where's the morally defensible distinction between what we are doing to Pakistan and the kind of terrorism that we are ostensibly discouraging? From a purely results-oriented perspective, aren't we cutting our nose off to spite our face by spurring on Al Qaeda recruitment faster than we're killing individuals? And is any of this the kind of novel precedent we want to set as a matter of either civil rights or foreign policy?
It isn't all that novel.
We've lobbed explosives into countries without being at war with them for decades. Because somehow it is supposed to increase our 'security' rather than undertaking far less deadly means to achieve similar results.
More the shape of it, really. Especially since they're going to be trying to scare people who don't understand what a domain name is.
I'm pretty sure I nailed the shape of it.
I admit I'm not an expert on this history but isn't systematically doing so on a large scale novel?
IIRC, we tried to assassinate individuals with cruise missiles something like three times in history?
Likewise that we generally discontinued even attempting it owing to bad net results?
And in an unrelated coincidence... oh well, you know where this is going. I'm sure you're as capable of taking the Irish situation as an example as I am.
This I can understand and grudgingly agree with. Adegbile's nomination was perfectly moral/ethical/reasonable/whatever value system you want except it was pretty poor politics. I'm a little annoyed that a perfectly qualified candidate of the executives choosing is being denied because of politics but I'm willing to understand that's just the reality of what we have right now.
For as long as men aim to kill one another we will continue to refine our methods and ways in order to do it better. Drones are a new technology but old ideas. Large scale bombardment isn't a novel idea, it's been around for centuries: land, sea and air.
Take away drones and we'll bring F-117 nighthawks out of retirement, and use B-2 bombers or F-16/18/22/35's dropping much larger bombs. Remove air bombardment and you have naval ships firing missiles and lobbing shells. Remove naval bombardment and we'll just move artillery pieces closer and lob rocket assisted 155mm shells at people or use an MRLS and 'steel rain' an entire grid zone. Remove a howitzer, and we'll just get closer with mortars. Remove mortars, and we'll send in people with guns. Remove guns, and we'll use knives. Remove that, and we'll use sticks and rocks. Take away sticks and rocks and we'll go up to one another to kill them with our fists and feet.
If tomorrow we learned that we could harness and direct lightning strikes, you'd see the middle east grow green from all the rain, thunder and lightning we'd be sending that way. There's ideas about using kinetic rods to drop payloads on targets that would be equivalent to nuclear strikes without the radiation; or having hypersonic bombers that would be unmanned, can be anywhere in the world in a moments notice, dropping precision payloads on targets. Think drones if given steroids. We will never stop killing one another.
So the only thing that separates Obama from past presidents and/or future presidents is that Drones are being used and the Drone program currently resides in the hands of the CIA. Maybe one day it'll be handed over to the military, since why is our Intelligence agency orchestrating bombing campaigns; but it's not going to go away: newer, cheaper, smaller, and faster technologies will arise that will make drones obsolete, but until that day happens, drones are here to stay.
As opposed to, you know, jets. Or bombers. Or ships. Or submarines.
As has been pointed out drones are not doing anything we haven't done before. They're just receiving far more press because drone sounds scary. There's nothing at all wrong with opposing the general policy behind attacks against foreign citizens but the attempts to keep bringing drones up are asinine.
Please do think about and respond to the issues that have actually been presented by the way that drones are being used.
Frankly I don't get why you keep bringing up drones but then get upset when people talk about drones.
I'm not upset, just disappointed.
The issue is whether targeted killings, as exemplified by the drone program, are good or bad.
I am disappointed that instead of engaging with that issue, you are still telling the people who disagree with you the same tired straw man - that they must just be afraid of drones, or else they must have been confused because drones get scary press coverage.
Each time you tilt at the same windmill instead of making a substantive answer, I am disappointed again.
Because you keep talking about drones. Not targeted killings.
Because if you actually talk about "should the US government attempt to assassinate foreign terrorist leaders?" then the answer most people will come up with is yes. Because it's a messy situation, but its entirely unreasonable to think we can actually arrest these people, and would be a ridiculously unnecessary threat to life to try to do so.
Because then you'd also have to acknowledge that an in-person arrest, in a foreign country, is likely to lead to quite a lot of collateral damage when said terrorist group decides to have a shoot out instead, and where we've now given them the opportunity to function, operate - and kind of importantly - gain combat experience against us.
It's pretty obvious that the program of assassination is largely focused in countries where operating a human intelligence network is difficult and cooperation with corrupt local authorities essentially impossible. We are not, for example, assassinating terrorist leaders in Europe or China generally. Whereas in Pakistan we have the issue that it's entirely unclear where the government ends, the Taliban begins, and a pretty big interest in ensuring we keep the right group of people in charge of the nukes.
EDIT: For example we're essentially involved in open hostilities with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Continually air-striking their leadership is exactly what you do in open warfare.
This is my question because I keep hearing that we have always done this, and that if we didn't use drones then we would just use the stuff we used to use for the same job; with respect, your current list does not seem relevant to proving that.
I see predominantly full-fledged, legal wartime attacks along with some similar attacks that were, given one exigency or another, perhaps also legal under the traditional laws of war, international custom, etc.
But at a glance, none of them look at all like the sort of targeted killings in Pakistan that have been raising concern.
I haven't done this. I have in fact said the opposite multiple times and that I wholly understand people against it and respect the opinion.
But every time you're supposedly gonna talk about how targeted killing is awful you instead open with stuff like "One of several novel issues presented by the current drone program is the infliction of this collateral damage on the civilians of a nation we are not at war against." You then apparently want no one to point out that this is blatantly false and declare anyone that does as missing your point and strawmanning.
If you want to talk about how targeted killings are bad do that. It's easily done without mentioning specific programs you've already admitted yourself you don't know much about.
Also? Phrases like this are ridiculously vague and ill defined. None of us know what you personally consider legal wartime attacks. America hasn't officiallybeen to war for decades.
I doubt it very much, but I'm always open to the idea that there is more I could stand to learn.
e: I'm a pretty literal person, Quid. There are traditional laws of war, and when I say "legal wartime attacks" I mean "legal wartime attacks."
What that means to you is a mystery since by your definition I guess it's legit to invade a country and slaughter thousands of innocents as collateral without ever declaring war but killing a few people is off the table. Which is just a bit of incongruity.
Whether an act of war is legal or illegal is generally a fact that you can look up. There is no mystery here in my terminology.
I'm not sure on what basis you're making your two guesses but they look like parodies of things that I have said.
Drones are just the tool. A tool that actually minimizes potential collateral damage when compared against other options on the table. So, an "anti-drone" position that fails to provide a viable alternative that further decreases collateral damage opportunities and/or increase effectiveness really is no position at all. To borrow a phrase already used in this thread: "You may as well be tilting at windmills."