Drones in the Press .. again.

[ballen0351]

We agree on something it is what it is, thats about it.

I'm not OK with the govt killing Americans but special cicumstances come front and center and hard decisions have to be made. Americans turned whackjob will sometimes be taken out. It happens in the US too but here they hold up with a lot of guns and we have storm them and they die "without do process." It's not the same over seas but the bottom line is they are killing Americans and anyone else who do not support them. That guy was wanted by Yemen and the US and we were helping Yemen fight AlQueda. It's not as cut and dry as it is here.

In the case of foreign lands, I believe due process can't always be achieved...an enemy of the state is just that, an enemy of the state. The stakes are differant than stateside and sometimes must be treated differantly. Either he will kill or we will stop him. The choices are not easy.

So as long as the govt classifys you as a wack job. Its OK to blow them up without attempting due process. Got it. We should have tried that at Waco could have kept from loosing 4 ATF agents.

 

[Tez3]

It doesn't matter how hard it is. US Citizens have rights just because its hard is not an excuse. Your OK with killing Americans without due process. I'm not. It is what it is.

You're right, it could be the thin end of the wedge, history has taught us that. Setting a precedent for killing your citizens without any of the usual legalities being gone through means that next time it's easier and the time after that no one is thinking it's wrong. Then you get someone in charge who doesn't like certain groups or minorites so putting them out of the way has become so much easier and may be, not this time or the next or even the ten times after that, it could be you they've decided are a danger to the state.

 

[ballen0351]

You're right, it could be the thin end of the wedge, history has taught us that. Setting a precedent for killing your citizens without any of the usual legalities being gone through means that next time it's easier and the time after that no one is thinking it's wrong. Then you get someone in charge who doesn't like certain groups or minorites so putting them out of the way has become so much easier and may be, not this time or the next or even the ten times after that, it could be you they've decided are a danger to the state.

Right. This time it was a terriorist so its ok. Next time its a serial killer so its ok next time its only a child molester so its ok. Until it becomes they voted against me they are an enemy of the state take them out.

 

[WC_lun]

I still canot come to a conclusion for myself on this. I am extremely uncomfortable with killing American citizens without due process. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with even assasinating foriegn nationals. Both set precedence that would very easily be abused. I'm also very uncomfortable with the minimal oversight of the drone program and what qualifies a person to be on that list of soon to be dead men. On the other hand, Al Quida and the US are at war. True it isn't a conventional war, but it is war just the same. If a US citizens had fought for the Nazi's in WWII (and there were some that did) would you expect them to not be shot at by the US military?

I have to wonder, are lives truly being saved by these drone strikes or are we oursleves now waging a type of war of terror on the terrorist? Ironic f true, but disturbing as well.

 

[ballen0351]

We have not even touched on the question of :
are even allowd use the military against US Citizens?
They can't within our border but does that protection go beyond the US borders? Apparently not according to the current administration.

 

[James Kovacich]

This Admisistration is following the same exectutive order priviledges of the previous administration. The 2 differances, an "American" terrorist has been killed and the use of drones has been stepped up withe the current admisitration. But in the end the same executive priviledges. It is actually a compliment to the previous administration to follow it's lead and expand on it. Like it or not, bad guys need to be stopped and sometimes it means death.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

This Admisistration is following the same exectutive order priviledges of the previous administration. The 2 differances, an "American" terrorist has been killed and the use of drones has been stepped up withe the current admisitration. But in the end the same executive priviledges. It is actually a compliment to the previous administration to follow it's lead and expand on it. Like it or not, bad guys need to be stopped and sometimes it means death.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Yep and when this president expands the power and then the next president expands it a little farther and then the next and the next. Its OK as long as its your side doing the expanding. Would you feel OK giving Chaney the power to kill Americans without due process? Hell he was destroyed for dumping a little water on peoples faces.

 

[geezer]

You can used deadly force against a fleeing felon if you believe his escape will create immediate danger to others.

Perhaps this should be the standard we apply in the case of these drone strikes as well. The sticky question would then become what is "imminent danger". If we entrust our President with ultimate authority on such matters, and anybody, citizens included, can be assassinated on the premise that they are deemed (by the administration) to be a threat, we establish a dangerous precedent. While I actually tend to believe that historically, most Presidents (from all parties) have acted in good (if sometimes misguided) faith, I am also certain that we need checks and balances, and strict limits on executive power to insure that we don't end up on the road to becoming an authoritarian state.

...sometimes we have to risk letting the bad guy get away, and even risk losing more innocent lives to protect ourselves from an even greater threat to our freedom, namely the threat of living under dictatorship. If you think this is far fetched, I'd say just glance at a history book or look around the world today. The first steps towards authoritarianism won't be confiscating your guns, but using fear of some domestic or external threat to confiscate your common sense and along with it your civil rights!

 

[ballen0351]

Perhaps this should be the standard we apply in the case of these drone strikes as well. The sticky question would then become what is "imminent danger". If we entrust our President with ultimate authority on such matters, and anybody, citizens included, can be assassinated on the premise that they are deemed (by the administration) to be a threat, we establish a dangerous precedent. While I actually tend to believe that historically, most Presidents (from all parties) have acted in good (if sometimes misguided) faith, I am also certain that we need checks and balances, and strict limits on executive power to insure that we don't end up on the road to becoming an authoritarian state.

...sometimes we have to risk letting the bad guy get away, and even risk losing more innocent lives to protect ourselves from an even greater threat to our freedom, namely the threat of living under dictatorship. If you think this is far fetched, I'd say just glance at a history book or look around the world today. The first steps towards authoritarianism won't be confiscating your guns, but using fear of some domestic or external threat to confiscate your common sense and along with it your civil rights!

For the fleeing felon rule to be applied you need to be actually trying to catch him. I can't just sit outside a bad guys house with a sniper rifle and as soon as I see him blow his head off.

 

[K-man]

On the other hand, Al Quida and the US are at war. True it isn't a conventional war, but it is war just the same. If a US citizens had fought for the Nazi's in WWII (and there were some that did) would you expect them to not be shot at by the US military?

I have to wonder, are lives truly being saved by these drone strikes or are we oursleves now waging a type of war of terror on the terrorist? Ironic f true, but disturbing as well.

Before I start on al-Qaeda lets look at 'Nazis'. The war wasn't fought against 'Nazis' per se. It was fought against Germany. Most Germans were not Nazi, although the country was ruled by the Nazi party backed by the Waffen SS.

Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. To define the attempt to eradicate such a group as 'War', to me, defies logic. You can have a war between countries or a civil war between opposing parties within a country. 'War on Terror' is an excuse to do what in other times you would not do but you can get away with because the country in which you are waging your 'war' is powerless to stop you.

Let's have an 'hypothetical'. A 'radical' freedom group springs up in China. They create a bit of mayhem, destroy some infrastructure and kill a few Chinese officials. They seek support world wide and find support in the US. They are under intense heat in China so the leaders escape to the US and set up their headquarters in Manhatten. The Chinese Government does what it can to get the US Government to turn over these radicals, to cut off funds, impose sanctions, etc. Nothing is working. So the Chinese declare a 'War on Terror' and put a rocket into the building in Manhatten that houses the 'terrorists'. A number of US citizens are also killed but, in the scheme of things, that is 'collateral damage' and some loss of innocent life must be expected.

Now I leave the rest of the story up to you but the thread could be ..

i) The Americans shrug their shoulders and say too bad. That's the way things are in the world.
ii) The Americans respond by declaring war on China for violating their sovereignty.
iii) Something in between.

:asian:

 

[ballen0351]

Before I start on al-Qaeda lets look at 'Nazis'. The war wasn't fought against 'Nazis' per se. It was fought against Germany. Most Germans were not Nazi, although the country was ruled by the Nazi party backed by the Waffen SS.

Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. To define the attempt to eradicate such a group as 'War', to me, defies logic. You can have a war between countries or a civil war between opposing parties within a country. 'War on Terror' is an excuse to do what in other times you would not do but you can get away with because the country in which you are waging your 'war' is powerless to stop you.

Let's have an 'hypothetical'. A 'radical' freedom group springs up in China. They create a bit of mayhem, destroy some infrastructure and kill a few Chinese officials. They seek support world wide and find support in the US. They are under intense heat in China so the leaders escape to the US and set up their headquarters in Manhatten. The Chinese Government does what it can to get the US Government to turn over these radicals, to cut off funds, impose sanctions, etc. Nothing is working. So the Chinese declare a 'War on Terror' and put a rocket into the building in Manhatten that houses the 'terrorists'. A number of US citizens are also killed but, in the scheme of things, that is 'collateral damage' and some loss of innocent life must be expected.

Now I leave the rest of the story up to you but the thread could be ..

i) The Americans shrug their shoulders and say too bad. That's the way things are in the world.
ii) The Americans respond by declaring war on China for violating their sovereignty.
iii) Something in between.

:asian:

The only thing i think is the US has approval to use drones in Yemen and Pakistan May not have public approval but I'd bet there is a " hey were going to blow this up and later we will give you this that and this. " Wink wink nod nod. We will let you condemned the attacks publicly

 

[K-man]

The only thing i think is the US has approval to use drones in Yemen and Pakistan May not have public approval but I'd bet there is a " hey were going to blow this up and later we will give you this that and this. " Wink wink nod nod. We will let you condemned the attacks publicly

I'm sure you're right. And the 'give you later' is all part of Bill's 'charitable' foreign aid.