SkinsHokieFan Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 Here is my major problem This administration has now institutionalized in the national security bueracracy a permanent war. Similar to the war on drugs, careers and livelihood will depend on the continuation of targeted assassinations via drones, for reasons we aren't being told. 20 years from now this war will have only been expanded and these powers further exploited by Republican and Democrat administrations. We will have always been at war with Eurasia in 2032 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCranon21 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 As long as there is a FISA like board reviewing to "help" prevent rogue use... can't complain about owning the skies.The alternate is not acceptable to humankind. Pretty much. They are legal as long as it goes through the proper channels and procedures that is within the FISA rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 What is to stop them from targeting our president?This is the point that I think is largely ignored. There is now an international precedent that if you can prove behind closed doors that person X is a "terrorist" you can act with impunity to eliminate person X.Now, with the amount of innocent civilian fatalities in both Yemen and Pakistan (and a lesser extent Afghanistan) caused by drone strikes, would not the governments of those countries be completely justified in labeling the US President as a "terrorist" to their country? And as such, act with impunity to against him? Where is the line? Who gets to decide who is right? Who gets to decide what constitutes a terrorist? What is the criteria for that decision? ---------- Post added October-24th-2012 at 10:59 AM ---------- Pretty much. They are legal as long as it goes through the proper channels and procedures that is within the FISA rules.This was not an acceptable answer for the previous administration. Why is it acceptable now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I have a problem with our use of drones. We are in effect assassinating people, and we’re not hiding our thoughts on them as leaders. Where does it stop? What happens in situations where/when people and institutions we designate as terrorists are voted into power? Hamas?What is to stop them from targeting our president? The trend I see is one where it is much easier and cheaper to play offense than it is to play defense. . In the case of terrorists it certainly is cheaper, the tactics they use are designed to bankrupt us fiscally, mentally and turn the populace we must harm to go after them against us Refusing to play into their schemes is the only reasonable choice,nor is ignoring them a option. If they are voted into power there are myriad ways to address/control them...that really is not the issue here they have targeted our president and us.....ignoring real threats is not a option,nor is sitting in the stands for our leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCranon21 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 This was not an acceptable answer for the previous administration. Why is it acceptable now? Well I'm as liberal as they come, but to me, as long as it's done legally, then what can you do or say about it? I understand what FISA is. Issues like that, I try not to make political. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 So wait. You are discrediting what another poster says based on your own speculation? Even though you admit there is no proof one way or the other? Doesn't that make you essentially the same as the person you are chastising? I figured you'd have your irony detector on as you read the last part of my statement like the part you DIDN'T bold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I am not saying ignore real threats. The article even points out the #4 guy now is probably not as effective as the one we killed 5 times ago. So where does it stop? We have declared war on a group not a person nor a state. If they change the name of the organization does that take them off the list? Hamas A is OK? As we see nations fall in the Middle East with other institutions as powerful to the individual as any state we recognize, does this "declare war" model still work? I am thinking tribes, but I am sure there are others. Are people talking about hating the U.S. to a crowd inciting riot a problem worth targeting? burning a flag? What if they are just talking to their lawnmower? We went after those who hit us on 9-11. If there is another one we missed who shows in the cross hairs, take him. They did something huge. The problem is we are willing to snipe for an ever expanding list...at what point do we arrive where we are on the drug war with too many "legit" targets to effectively handle? Arresting pot users under the "they broke the law!" logic gives pretty full prisons. At some point we become worse than those we fight. This is the moral race to the bottom we find ourselves on now as we seek to take away any sense of safety they will ever feel anywhere. The problem is when you take away everything from a group, there is nothing left to threaten to take away. Does it feel good to destroy the lives of those who hate us, even if their threat was justified by things we have done to their families and friends (who had it coming too no doubt). I see no good end following this path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 As usual, gbear gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Was listening to Pete Dominic on Sirrus Potus channel and he wondering why this question wasn't asked: Paraphrasing-- If the U.S. has the right to use drones and kill people and states their legal basis to do that; what prevents other countries like Russia, China, etc... from having the same? They may have threats that need eliminating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 It stops when they are no longer a legitimate threat that cannot be otherwise handled differently. we ain't picking names out of a hat add Russia and China and many others have been killing targets for ages,they just don't make a production about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Was listening to Pete Dominic on Sirrus Potus channel and he wondering why this question wasn't asked: Paraphrasing-- If the U.S. has the right to use drones and kill people and states their legal basis to do that; what prevents other countries like Russia, China, etc... from having the same? They may have threats that need eliminating. Yeah, but we're the good guys....so.......:insert-flags-and-eagles-and-patriotism:....so it's ok. And people wonder why I'm a pacifist. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 It stops when they are no longer a legitimate threat that cannot be otherwise handled differently.we ain't picking names out of a hat add Russia and China and many others have been killing targets for ages,they just don't make a production about it. So if Russia and China deems Romney a threat, will they trying something before the election? Seems like Obama is more to their liking. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 So if Russia and China deems Romney a threat, will they trying something before the election? Seems like Obama is more to their liking. Just saying. You are ignoring the nation/state aspect....unless of course you think O wouldn't mind :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list Obama moves to make the War on Terror permanentComplete with a newly coined, creepy Orwellian euphemism – 'disposition matrix' – the administration institutionalizes the most extremist powers a government can claim Worse still, as the ACLU's legislative counsel Chris Calabrese documented back in July in a must-read analysis, Obama officials very recently abolished safeguards on how this information can be used. Whereas the agency, during the Bush years, was barred from storing non-terrorist-related information about innocent Americans for more than 180 days – a limit which "meant that NCTC was dissuaded from collecting large databases filled with information on innocent Americans" – it is now free to do so. Obama officials eliminated this constraint by authorizing the NCTC "to collect and 'continually assess' information on innocent Americans for up to five years". What has been created here - permanently institutionalized - is a highly secretive executive branch agency that simultaneously engages in two functions: (1) it collects and analyzes massive amounts of surveillance data about all Americans without any judicial review let alone search warrants, and (2) creates and implements a "matrix" that determines the "disposition" of suspects, up to and including execution, without a whiff of due process or oversight. It is simultaneously a surveillance state and a secretive, unaccountable judicial body that analyzes who you are and then decrees what should be done with you, how you should be "disposed" of, beyond the reach of any minimal accountability or transparency. The "kill shot" line Targeted killing is now so routine that the Obama administration has spent much of the past year codifying and streamlining the processes that sustain it. God forbid a Romney administration gets this power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 gbear, I understand your points and agree with some of them but my question is: what is your solution? I mean a realistic solution that takes into account the complex geopolitical and military situations involved. I'm sorry but "if we just stop, they will" is naive and while it would be great if we lived in a world where everyone just suddenly started to get along if only one person stopped "playing the game", that isn't the world we live in. Are we responsible for some of the hate they have (and have long had) for us? Yes. Does that mean that if we just stop they will? No. I honestly hate to hear about the suffering that war causes, whether its on a traditional battlefield or a nontraditional arena like drone strikes, etc. But I always come back to that question...what is a realistic solution? One that would lead to less people (especially innocents) dying while still keeping us safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/10/24/institutionalizing-americas-targeted-killing-program/ Institutionalizing America’s Targeted Killing Program Recently, I spoke to a military official with extensive and wide-ranging experience in the special operations world, and who has had direct exposure to the targeted killing program. To emphasize how easy targeted killings by special operations forces or drones has become, this official flicked his hand back over and over, stating: 'It really is like swatting flies. We can do it forever easily and you feel nothing. But how often do you really think about killing a fly?'" ---------- Post added October-24th-2012 at 11:53 AM ---------- Well I'm as liberal as they come, but to me, as long as it's done legally, then what can you do or say about it? I understand what FISA is. Issues like that, I try not to make political. Except this does NOT go through FISA. In fact, we have no idea how these decisions are made, its all secret. In a sane world, this would end a man's Presidency. Instead, we have bi-partisan consensus on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 In fact, we have no idea how these decisions are made, its all secret. In a sane world, this would end a man's Presidency. Instead, we have bi-partisan consensus on this. We do have a pretty good idea, the leadership moreso on detail of course. any flies you miss enough to address? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Except this does NOT go through FISA.In fact, we have no idea how these decisions are made, its all secret. In a sane world, this would end a man's Presidency. Instead, we have bi-partisan consensus on this. I don't think that aggressive military/intelligence actions have ever ended a Presidency in the history of the United States. Maybe the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration helped Jefferson and Madison solidify power in 1796-1800. But many of our greatest Presidents, from Lincoln to FDR, have a rather poor record on civil liberties.And the process isn't entirely secret. The other branches of government are starting to take a closer look. The Senate Intelligence Committee visits the CIA to review intelligence that was used to justify each drone strike: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/25/nation/la-na-drone-oversight-20120625 The Awlaki family is pursuing a wrongful death lawsuit that is proceeding into discovery and will likely go to trial: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/world/middleeast/us-officials-sued-over-citizens-killed-in-yemen.html?_r=0 I think there will be more pushback over the next four years on these programs, no matter who is President (unless Romney wins and Republicans control both Houses of Congress). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Here is my major problemThis administration has now institutionalized in the national security bueracracy a permanent war. Similar to the war on drugs, careers and livelihood will depend on the continuation of targeted assassinations via drones, for reasons we aren't being told. 20 years from now this war will have only been expanded and these powers further exploited by Republican and Democrat administrations. We will have always been at war with Eurasia in 2032 This is a real problem and one that will need to be managed, I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I have a problem with our use of drones. We are in effect assassinating people, and we’re not hiding our thoughts on them as leaders. Where does it stop? What happens in situations where/when people and institutions we designate as terrorists are voted into power? Hamas?What is to stop them from targeting our president? The trend I see is one where it is much easier and cheaper to play offense than it is to play defense. On the face of things, this would seem to argue for the get them first approach so many on here take. I argue it should lead us to an approach of refusing to play the game. It’s not a winnable game. From where I sit it looks far more likely it is a game to see who loses less, and I prefer not play a game for losers bragging rights. Take a stand. Stand for something other than the ability to kill with nothing but a thought and a button push. I say this not as a pacifist, but merely as somebody who never wants to see military might used without a clear end point. I said it before Afghanistan and Iraq. There is no end to this path, and we drag the world with us as we head down it. Here is my major problemThis administration has now institutionalized in the national security bueracracy a permanent war. Similar to the war on drugs, careers and livelihood will depend on the continuation of targeted assassinations via drones, for reasons we aren't being told. 20 years from now this war will have only been expanded and these powers further exploited by Republican and Democrat administrations. We will have always been at war with Eurasia in 2032 I think these are two outstanding posts and mostly sum up what I feel. No good will come from the US assassinating people at will and there is no clean kill when using missiles and bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I defnitely understand the concern.. but i also recognize this isn't anything close to a conventional enemy, and communications these days are cheap, instantaeous and global. What we (us) know, they also know. I don't see how it can be very transparent, and I don't see how we really have any choice but o either stop altogether, or trust those in charge of doing it right. Not the best place to be, but again, any ideas on how to do it better? This discussion aside, i am deadset against using them in the US in pretty much any capacity. I do not believe they should be used for surveillance, traffic control, patrol, and especially not armed. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 This discussion aside, i am deadset against using them in the US in pretty much any capacity. I do not believe they should be used for surveillance, traffic control, patrol, and especially not armed. ~Bang I agree on the armed part, but they can fill a domestic niche helicopters and spotter planes do now(at lower costs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I agree on the armed part, but they can fill a domestic niche helicopters and spotter planes do now(at lower costs) I'm still very hesitant about it mostly because of the insane amount that those drones can see and do. With IR and thermal imaging, ridiculous amounts of magnification, they could essentially look into your home and watch exactly what you're doing at any time. If they were only used in specific situations like searches for criminals or missing people, other things like that, I might be ok with it. But the idea of them just sort of flying around willy nilly gives me the creeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 So a "secret" court reviews "secret" evidence to maintain a "secret" kill list, and all of the information is protected under "state secrets"? Sounds exactly like the techniques used by the Bush administration that had this board going ape**** from 2005 (my join date) to 2008. Why is the use of "secret" acceptable under this administration but not under the previous administration? Why are Obama and Biden not accused of being war criminals for executing "illegal" wars? Why are Obama and Biden not accused of eroding American's civil liberties for extending the Patriot Act? Why are Obama and Biden exempt from being accused of eroding American's civil liberties for using drones on American soil?I simply can't understand the 180 on these activities when "your guy" is doing them. President Obama is my guy as he's the current President: Romney will be my guy also if he gets extremely lucky. As with the President Bush review from FISA it's not all 100% secret, and FISA should be working with the Intelligence committee. There were reports i posted on how many Bush did vs. blah blah blah. It comes down to Trust but verify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 So a "secret" court reviews "secret" evidence to maintain a "secret" kill list, and all of the information is protected under "state secrets"? Sounds exactly like the techniques used by the Bush administration that had this board going ape**** from 2005 (my join date) to 2008. Why is the use of "secret" acceptable under this administration but not under the previous administration? Why are Obama and Biden not accused of being war criminals for executing "illegal" wars? Why are Obama and Biden not accused of eroding American's civil liberties for extending the Patriot Act? Why are Obama and Biden exempt from being accused of eroding American's civil liberties for using drones on American soil?I simply can't understand the 180 on these activities when "your guy" is doing them. Agreed. I've called Obama and Biden assassins and murders plenty of times, but it gets dismissed. It's pretty funny to see all the people who were throwing around all the same terms for Bushco, but now say the wars are over and Bush started it. Sad I guess would be a better word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.