|
Teddles posted:Except, you know, the media might ask questions, the guy's friends and family might want some answers, and, oh yeah, that vast legion of heavily armed paranoid schizophrenics a.k.a. Tea Partiers who are convinced that the US government is out to get them. Leaving aside the rest of the US citizenry, who might also show some concern.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 13:57 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2013 05:04 |
|
|
thehumandignity posted:Don't be dense, I wasn't saying we could literally take any platoon in Afghanistan, fly them to Manas, and ship them off to wherever we've found a terrorist hiding. I'm saying that with the enormous amount of resources we are wasting in Afghanistan, claiming that we don't have the resources to track down and capture suspected terrorists is ridiculous. One of the reasons drone strikes became popular with military leaders is that they are able to launch and attack the minute info is verified and the go ahead for the mission is given. With ground troops trying to capture you would have to keep teams on high alert more or less 24/7 all over the middle east and south Asia. Then, with a ground force, you have issues with where the insertion group will land, if they will be entering a hot zone, the fact that the suspect will likely see them coming in that big fragile helicopter and depending on what country you are trying to operate in a bunch of military might just decide to show up. It took years and tens of millions of dollars to track down Bin Laden, and that still didn't end up with a trial. The hunt for these few people already likely bleeds into the 7 figure range each, you'll forgive me if I think asking to multiply that while increasing the military risk and negative political ramifications of the events falls into the realm of unreasonable. I wish it was different but the only thing that keeps my predisposed very left wing politics in check is the remembrance that if I'm going to get up in arms about an abuse of rights or social ill I need to be able to have some kind of reasonable alternative or solution and I just don't see one here. As far as the other ridiculous claim by somehow that these people could have been unaware of the situation and that there would have been even the remotest chance of them turning themselves in if they had only know... you realize that when you go on the FBI's most wanted list, they are going to contact everyone you've spoken to back here in the states trying to figure out where you are. They interview parents, schoolmates, friends and neighbors. If they suspect you've been in an area, intelligence gatherers will enter that area and talk to people trying to figure out where you've gone. It's how they eventually catch up with you. Can they be served with a warrant? No. But to think that there was even a chance they didn't know the government was trying to track them down is well beyond a reasonable doubt. thehumandignity posted:Not that far back. Pretty sure no country used air power against any people in the 19th century, since the first flight of any kind didn't happen until the very last year of the 19th century. But whatever, I'm being nitpicky, this isn't the big problem with your post. Hot air balloons were used as surveillance by both sides all the way back to the civil war, you'll forgive me if I don't have time to look up specifics right now since it's not truly relevant to the discussion.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 13:58 |
|
|
Teddles posted:
How exactly is the media asking questions going to lead to the people in power getting killed? The US government does terrible things on a daily basis and no one seems to give a poo poo. Even when the media decides to start asking about things and exposing how lovely the government is, no one does anything to fix the situation (besides complain). US citizens are more concerned about going to the mall and hating terrorists than they are about the rich folk occasionally bombing them. Even if the public openly criticizes the actions of the government, the government knows that it's safe because turning the computer off and starting a revolution is much harder and time consuming than just complaining on the internet and playing video games. Even if the US openly declared all its citizens as slaves, there would be very little resistance. Even if people actually tried to fight back, they'd get gunned down by a bunch of army folk who were "just following orders". A lot of people on this forum seemed to have realized this and are just responding to these kinds of news with humor since it's really the only way you can deal with the situation. I guess you can also complain. Complaining is great for feeling better about yourself and you can claim "I'm trying to stop the dictatorship!" but it doesn't actually do anything to change things. Anyone who thinks that they're against dictatorship should consider whether or not they would actually be ready to pick up a gun and risk their life, their family and everything they own to fight back.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 14:38 |
|
Why did you kill that guy?
He was a terrorist!
|
My favorite thing with the drone strike phenomenon is when President Obama's picture gets in the news in a photo-op with a kid in the Oval Office or something, you can be relatively certain that he may have ordered (albeit indirectly) a child of that same age murdered by a missile that morning. Imagine what this power is going to be used for when Jeb Bush is in power in 2016. The mind recoils.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 15:03 |
|
|
I thought we figured this out when the Branch Davidians were left to roast in their compound.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 15:05 |
|
|
themrguy posted:Realistically it's just a threat to people like al-Aulaqi (and if he was an "Average LF poster", then drat that forum must have been hard as gently caress), who probably already operate under the assumption of this possibly happening, but that can interfere with imaging about hellfires raining down on Zucoti park, and how it will happen any day now. To be fair, their is a worthwhile discussion to be had about the legal precedent it has the potential to set. The case that's been brought before us is "he said bad stuff about the US" and he's met with suspected terrorists. Does that mean anybody who opposes the US invasion can bomb anyone who's acted as a chaplain for US soldiers and be A-OK?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 15:14 |
|
|
Look just stay away from subversives and don't commit thought crimes and you won't get executed in the night, I don't know what you're all so worried about.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 15:17 |
|
|
Anubis posted:One of the reasons drone strikes became popular with military leaders is that they are able to launch and attack the minute info is verified and the go ahead for the mission is given. With ground troops trying to capture you would have to keep teams on high alert more or less 24/7 all over the middle east and south Asia. Then, with a ground force, you have issues with where the insertion group will land, if they will be entering a hot zone, the fact that the suspect will likely see them coming in that big fragile helicopter and depending on what country you are trying to operate in a bunch of military might just decide to show up. It took years and tens of millions of dollars to track down Bin Laden, and that still didn't end up with a trial. The hunt for these few people already likely bleeds into the 7 figure range each, you'll forgive me if I think asking to multiply that while increasing the military risk and negative political ramifications of the events falls into the realm of unreasonable. We do have teams on high alert 24/7 all over the middle east. We'd save a lot of money and gain cooperation of local governments if we drew down our conventional troop numbers, stopped blowing up civilians with drone strikes, and stepped up training and deployment of Special Forces and intelligence operators while providing enhanced levels of air support for ground operations conducted by local government forces. I don't know why you'd think that continuing our pointless occupation of Afghanistan while also trying to ethically pursue high-value targets would be a good idea at all; this way would require substantially fewer people overseas, not more.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 16:00 |
|
|
Teddles posted:
Hi, welcome to America. You must be new here! First off, assuming any significant portion of the American population will take action just because some poor chump gets gunned down is absurd. Innocent (typically poor and/or a minority) people get gunned down pretty frequently in this country by local and federal authorities, and usually it hardly registers more than a 5-minute blurb on the local news. Secondly, the vast majority of our media outlets suck, and are more concerned with pimping a partisan position or playing with twitter than actual reporting. Lastly, the executive branch has a tremendous capacity for obfuscation of its actions. They don't have to explicitly say "LOL THOUGHT HIM WUZ A TERRIST", they can be more subtle than that. Anyone defending this sort of thing is a terrible person, the sort of person who cheers a dictator. You assume that just because this legal right isn't currently being used all willy-nilly, it can never be used as such, which is an absurd assumption. This is Salem circa 1692 writ large.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 16:19 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:The case that's been brought before us is "he said bad stuff about the US" and he's met with suspected terrorists. Does that mean anybody who opposes the US invasion can bomb anyone who's acted as a chaplain for US soldiers and be A-OK? I heard he rescued a kitten once and nursed it back to health. After, the kitten went jihad & gunned down a bunch of infidels just like the US soldier he mentored. Are you for real or trolling? Again for the bleeding hearts, good riddance. gently caress him, his family and his deplorable ideology. Glad to know i compete with a top 10 terrorist!
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 16:57 |
|
|
You guys trust the executive branch to make military decisions every day. Who to shoot, who not to shoot. You elect them to this power. I see little distinction between using a drone or a rifle platoon, except that the former puts less soldiers at risk. Stateless factions blurred the lines and forced our hand, nobody WANTS to be hunting down guerrillas but they've proven the capability and intent of carrying out attacks here. Make educated decisions when you vote, don't elect warmongers. It's silly to think you need to fear a drone strike any more than you worry about a battleship shelling your condo.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:05 |
|
|
thehumandignity posted:We do have teams on high alert 24/7 all over the middle east. We'd save a lot of money and gain cooperation of local governments if we drew down our conventional troop numbers, stopped blowing up civilians with drone strikes, and stepped up training and deployment of Special Forces and intelligence operators while providing enhanced levels of air support for ground operations conducted by local government forces. I don't know why you'd think that continuing our pointless occupation of Afghanistan while also trying to ethically pursue high-value targets would be a good idea at all; this way would require substantially fewer people overseas, not more. Can we split the difference? I'm more than happy with zero troop presence in the middle east, and instead a drone fleet patrolling the region. The occupation is a disaster, and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. Drones on the other hand, are a game changer.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:16 |
|
|
olylifter posted:My favorite thing with the drone strike phenomenon is when President Obama's picture gets in the news in a photo-op with a kid in the Oval Office or something, you can be relatively certain that he may have ordered (albeit indirectly) a child of that same age murdered by a missile that morning. But he wants to save children by banning guns. Why would he bomb children with drones?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:18 |
|
|
sentientcarbon posted:Hi, welcome to America. You must be new here! And anyone attacking this position is blatantly ignoring the fact that if this power started to be abused, the opposite party in Congress would immediately raise an unholy hell of a shitstorm about it. Even used legitimately there's a high chance of that occurring. The only way this will actually be a danger is if the executive branch manages to get a supermajority in both House and Senate again, and the chances of that happening are pretty low. I really don't get the inherent distrust of the government. Our government makes some pretty hosed up decisions, but on the whole doesn't tend to act out of direct malice against citizens, and whistle blow on each other pretty fast when something like that does happen. We have checks, balances, and safeguards in place for a reason, and as long as this doesn't circumvent those (which it doesn't), I don't see the problem.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:25 |
|
|
Funny story, turns out this isn't actually the legal justification for the assassinations at all, and congress still hasn't been shown the real ones.quote:First, is it not the actual legal memos used to authorize the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and who knows who else. As Michael Isikoff notes in his story, the Senators whose job it is to oversee the Executive Branch — even the ones on the Senate Intelligence Committee that are supposed to be read into covert operations — are still demanding the memos, for at least the 12th time. The release of this white paper must not serve to take pressure off of the White House to release the actual memos.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:27 |
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I'm more than happy with zero troop presence in the middle east, and instead a drone fleet patrolling the region. Washington Times, Feb 7 posted:Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:27 |
|
|
Flarestar posted:And anyone attacking this position is blatantly ignoring the fact that if this power started to be abused, the opposite party in Congress would immediately raise an unholy hell of a shitstorm about it. The problem is that this power exists in the first place. The government should not have the legal power to blow up American citizens without any kind of trial (or evidence of crime), while also probably blasting to hell a few innocent bystanders.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:41 |
|
|
Flarestar posted:And anyone attacking this position is blatantly ignoring the fact that if this power started to be abused, the opposite party in Congress would immediately raise an unholy hell of a shitstorm about it. Even used legitimately there's a high chance of that occurring. The only way this will actually be a danger is if the executive branch manages to get a supermajority in both House and Senate again, and the chances of that happening are pretty low. What? Your stalwart defender against the expansion and abuse of executive branch power is the Republican party? You mean the guys behind the patriot act, toture, guantanamo, etc? You're...you're joking, right? I'll admit I'm having a hard time telling who is serious in this thread.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:41 |
|
|
ZLogic posted:Karma is a bitch, isn't it? I guess we Americans should re-learn the Golden Rule before we find out exactly how much we dislike the taste of our own medicines. Even taken to a silly extreme, I'd rather have the police watch me jerking off in my backyard than have platoons of marines hoofing it around hostile countries to fulfill some notion of "due process" for self declared state enemies.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:41 |
|
|
Locobono posted:Even taken to a silly extreme, I'd rather have the police watch me jerking off in my backyard than have platoons of marines hoofing it around hostile countries to fulfill some notion of "due process" for self declared state enemies.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:50 |
|
|
ZLogic posted:Of course, but what people unfit for Liberty haven't discovered is that if they can watch you jacking off in your backyard, they can watch the guy trying to make your life better at our DEAR LEADERS' expense. They can watch the guy trying to protect you from tyranny. And then they can kill him. I don't see how drones suddenly make this leap of logic possible or likely. By your reasoning it's a wonder we didn't see AH-64 Apache Longbows using Hellfires to suppress the Occupy movement.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 17:59 |
|
|
Locobono posted:I don't see how drones suddenly make this leap of logic possible or likely. By your reasoning it's a wonder we didn't see AH-64 Apache Longbows using Hellfires to suppress the Occupy movement. You compare this to how our leadership would never OVERTLY MURDER its citizens. Your leap of logic is the one that's lacking.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:02 |
|
|
ZLogic posted:I was explaining how our leadership can COVERTLY suppress all internal resistance to tyranny. Again, why? Because they can see the roof of your house? They couldn't watch you before... why? Be sure to use lots of caps in your response.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:04 |
|
|
Locobono posted:Again, why? Because they can see the roof of your house? They couldn't watch you before... why? Be sure to use lots of caps in your response. Why don't we let them install computer chips in our brains? That way, they can read your thoughts and know if you're a terrorist. THEN WE WILL BE SUPER SAFE! Just imagine, they could just press a button to kill you without having to worry about collateral damage from bullets and explosions! Think how much safer we'll be! We won't have to worry about terrorists anymore, thinking their evil terrorist thoughts.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:09 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure that they still believe we are a CIA front so we're safe.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:12 |
|
|
ZLogic posted:Some people like you still don't understand that people with power will use power illegitimately to keep it. This is a common theme throughout human history to which you seem completely blind. Oh I see, its a gradual process, just like creeping Shariah Law. Drones > ??? > Mandatory brain implants I think it's that middle part that's confusing me. The part where domestic drone overflights lead inexorably to an national panopticon where my backyard masturbatory practices are used to take away my freedoms.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:17 |
|
|
Locobono posted:Drones > ??? > Mandatory brain implants Our founding fathers understood what it took to keep freedom because they had imagination. You don't seem to want to use yours at all, but that doesn't validate your half-assed rebuttals.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:21 |
|
|
sentientcarbon posted:What? Your stalwart defender against the expansion and abuse of executive branch power is the Republican party? You mean the guys behind the patriot act, toture, guantanamo, etc? You're...you're joking, right? I'll admit I'm having a hard time telling who is serious in this thread. Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn is one of the most outspoken in demanding the administration officially cough up the legal framework being used to justify assassinations. Up is down, black is white, etc etc Democrats should be the forefront of this, but they aren't because neither party puts any sort of ideals or justice ahead of factionalism, and they have to SUPPORT ARE PRESIDENT IN A TIME OF WAR
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:22 |
|
|
ZLogic posted:Put frog in warm water > Increase Temperature slowly > FROG DIES WITHOUT SAVING ITSELF What you mean those RICH WHITE GUYS who owned SLAVES? Yase, they have much to teach us about true freedom.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:23 |
|
|
DFu4ever posted:While I agree that we should be out of the Middle East and Afghanistan, I don't see a problem with this. Probably because I'm not as paranoid about it being misused as most of you seem to be. I also don't agree with an American who actively assists lethal enemies in the field being granted immunity to lethal force solely because he is an American. That is pretty absurd. You don't even have to 'actively' do anything based on their insane criteria, only that they need to have some reason to think you are involved with them. Which by the way they won't be disclosing so it's basically, "trust us". What really is absurd is the fact that the USA now openly assassinates people in foreign countries based on 'evidence' that no one has access to. It's ridiculous the sentence is even that long, it should stop right after 'USA assassinates people' when we say woah cut that poo poo out immediately. We have already accidentally killed civilians with drone strikes before and this is going to lead to more. Killing civilians based on some nebulous MI or CIA echo chamber is misuse, which is unacceptable. If China or Russia announced they were going to be openly assassinating their citizens at home and around the world based off secret evidence everyone would flip poo poo. I can't believe people defend this because we are the good guys who wouldn't misuse the power.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:23 |
|
|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:What you mean those RICH WHITE GUYS who owned SLAVES? Yase, they have much to teach us about true freedom. "The world wasn't perfect when our country was founded, so obviously our founders were retarded." Or perhaps you're saying, "I hold the founders of America personally responsible for slavery." Take your pick, both statements are laughable.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:27 |
|
|
ZLogic posted:"The world wasn't perfect when our country was founded, so obviously our founders were retarded." It's laughable to believe they actually believed all men were created equal, sure. You think politics and pandering are recent inventions?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:30 |
|
|
Locobono posted:Oh I see, its a gradual process, just like creeping Shariah Law. Here let me help you: Erosion of due process > Wholesale removal of due proces > Murder of dissenters by those in power under the guise of 'suspicion of terrorist activities' Sure, the government could care less what you do in your backyard. But what if you have a legitimate gripe against the government and start making some noise, start causing a ruckus? Pretty suspicious if you ask me, guess it's time for you to go to a farm upstate where you can run around with the other dissenters.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:32 |
|
|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:It's laughable to believe they actually believed all men were created equal, sure. You think politics and pandering are recent inventions? It's laughable to believe they would/could/should have been successful founding a country and reinventing an economy simultaneously.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:32 |
|
|
Captain Beans posted:You don't even have to 'actively' do anything based on their insane criteria, only that they need to have some reason to think you are involved with them. Which by the way they won't be disclosing so it's basically, "trust us". These kinds of tactics will only turn the US into even more of a foreign bogeyman and further encourage retaliation by politically motivated insurgents, it seems counter-productive to the work Obama has tried to put in to improve the global image of America. *Edit Who is putting it into the heads of US policy makers that these kinds of acts are a good idea?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:32 |
|
|
im going to go with "the constitution 230 yrs ago was written by a bunch of racists who we wouldnt let into government today"
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:34 |
|
|
ZLogic posted:"The world wasn't perfect when our country was founded, so obviously our founders were retarded." You don't explain any of your statements or offer any kind of examples or evidence that correlates domestic drone use to a loss of civil liberties. Your arguments hold about as much water as the nut job with a megaphone that yells at passing cars about how sinful they are. Appeals to what the framers may or may not have believed (which you don't know) don't explain how a drone is different from a police helicopter, other than its a hell of a lot cheaper.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:35 |
|
|
Captain Beans posted:You don't even have to 'actively' do anything based on their insane criteria, only that they need to have some reason to think you are involved with them. Which by the way they won't be disclosing so it's basically, "trust us". France just blew up a whole bunch of terrorists along with the hostages and i think we know how Russia & China deals with them. Putin openly stated at a press conference he knows a guy who'll chop their genitals off. Due process? You're joking. nimh fucked around with this message at Feb 6, 2013 around 18:38 |
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:35 |
|
|
Locobono posted:You don't explain any of your statements or offer any kind of examples or evidence that correlates domestic drone use to a loss of civil liberties. Your arguments hold about as much water as the nut job with a megaphone that yells at passing cars about how sinful they are. Appeals to what the framers may or may not have believed (which you don't know) don't explain how a drone is different from a police helicopter, other than its a hell of a lot cheaper. If you don't understand how giving powerful people MORE, UNCHECKED POWER leads to the loss of civil liberties, then there's no point in my wasting time filling that broken vessel you call a mind.
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:38 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2013 05:04 |
|
|
sentientcarbon posted:Here let me help you: I think you're using "due process" when you should really be using "rules of engagement", seeing as the targeted individuals are members of a paramilitary organization that has racked up a significant body count. How many people does a group have to murder before it becomes a legitimate target of warfare? Surely less than the several thousand Al-Quaeda has. An American citizen who went to Germany in 1941 to take up arms to defend the Reich wouldn't get the same consideration, would you mourn his lack of "due process"?
|
| # ? Feb 6, 2013 18:42 |
|
