Should drones be used to fight domestic terrorism?

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by enterthemadness

Well, Pakistan must have changed their minds, they are making their own drones now...so...

Pakistan has the right to have drones if the want them. They have asked the US to provide them with drones so that they could perform their own attacks against militants. Since the US has not done so, they have decided to develop their own to no avail. This is because they lack the laser targeting and navigation technology as well as the accuracy that the US has in it's Hellfire missiles. Sure, they can try to get some from China who is willing to sell them to Pakistan, but they still have a ways to go before they can have similar capabilities and successes that the US has had over the last 10 years.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

What about due process of law and a right to a fair trail to prove guilt?

It's one thing to use them to find people. To find and destroy is another matter.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Destructus86

It still comes down to an abuse of power. Just look at what they've been doing with submerged drones. Spying on other countries.

The US has been doing that for decades. It's called reconnaissance (remember the U-2 and the SR-71?). They are just doing that with UAV's now to keep pilots out of harm's way and to prevent a national incident (Like the one in 1960 with Gary Powers). That is not abuse of power.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by dnno1

That's not true. In fact, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff, General James Cartwright explained that the camera suites on dones have better visibility than human pilots have, thus reducing the risk of collateral damage. If you put a manned aircraft in the same situation, you more than likely will have higher civilian casualties, risk to the life of the pilot, or the chance of a hostage situation which will not look good politically.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/...-drone-strikes

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...deaths/273035/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_a...ian_casualties

It doesn't matter what the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says, the increased number of civillian casualties due to drone strikes is a fact.

Also, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is pretty damn biased when it comes to military matters. I would site him as a reliable source.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by The Question

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/...-drone-strikes

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...deaths/273035/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_a...ian_casualties

It doesn't matter what the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says, the increased number of civillian casualties due to drone strikes is a fact.

Also, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is pretty damn biased when it comes to military matters. I would site him as a reliable source.

The thing is that the NDAA says that those covered are people who harbor terrorists as well (if you think about it you would be guilty of a crime if you willfully harbored a criminal). They are fair game. If you kill a terrorist and his family, the family who harbors him is fair game. One may count them as civilians, but they are targets as well. According to the U.S. as of 2010 only 20 to 30 civilians were killed in drone strikes in the 9 years it had been operation. That's compared to 6.6 million civilians during WWI, 70 million during WW2, about 1.5 million during the Korean conflict, 1.1 during the Vietnam War, and 13,807 during the Persian Gulf War in a shorter time frame with combat forces.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by dnno1

The thing is that the NDAA says that those covered are people who harbor terrorist as well (if you think about it you would be guilty of a crime if you willfully harbored a criminal). They are fair game. If you kill a terrorist and his family, the family who harbor's him is fair game. One may count them as civilians, but they are targets as well. According to the U.S. as of 2010 only 20 to 30 civilians were killed in drone strikes in the 9 years it had been operation. That's compared to 6.6 million civilians during WWI, 70 million during WW2, about 1.5 million during the Korean conflict, 1.1 during the Vietnam War, and 13,807 during the Persian Gulf War in a shorter time frame with combat forces.

So you're saying that the government is guilty of no crimes based on definitions that the government set.

You see the flaw in that reasoning, don't you?

[Marvolo]

Only under the most extreme circumstances. Like say a dirty bomb or nuke was about to go off in the States and the only way to stop it was to use a drone then go for it.

[chamber-music]

Originally Posted by Destructus86

1) Drones cause huge civilian loss of life (including children)
2) The "evidence" they use to determine is a person or persons are terrorists is often circumstantial at best.
3) It's a freaking WAR CRIME. So why are we doing it?

They have been accussed of bombing any group of guys in robes with a AK47s despite the fact many farmers in the middle east and africa carry AK's to protect their cattle from cattle rustlers.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by The Question

So you're saying that the government is guilty of no crimes based on definitions that the government set.

You see the flaw in that reasoning, don't you?

Not only the definitions they have set, but the international laws as well.

[The Question]

So far you've only said "According to the US" or "According to the NDAA," two completely unreliable sources when discussing accusations of war crimes on the part of the US government.

Also, how in the hell do "official classifications" matter? How does that change the fact that more civilians are dying in these strikes than in manned military operations? Just because the government says they don't count as civilians? How the hell does that make it better?

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by The Question

So far you've only said "According to the US" or "According to the NDAA," two completely unreliable sources when discussing accusations of war crimes on the part of the US government.

Also, how in the hell do "official classifications" matter? How does that change the fact that more civilians are dying in these strikes than in manned military operations? Just because the government says they don't count as civilians? How the hell does that make it better?

Ummm. The NDAA is law. How can that be unreliable?

When getting into the legality of the acts of US goverment, we can only go by the the law (not just accusations) and by the law, you technically can't count a person who is harboring a member of Al Qaeda as a true civilian since they are considered a covered person under Subtitle D of the NDAA. The law is what governs the actions of the United states, not someones opinion. Even if you used the reports in the links you provided, the number of killed civilians is still more than half of those killed in the Persian Gulf War, which means that it is not at all true that these drones have killed more civilians that in other campaigns.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Ummm. The NDAA is law. How can that be unreliable?

It's completely unreliable because it sets a standard of what is and isn't an unnecessary civilian casualty that favors the people that are being accused, and was written by the people that are being accused.

You can't say "the government isn't guilty of killing a lot of civilians because, based on the government's definition of a civilian, the people who died weren't civilians." That's absolution of guilt simply by means of changing the definition of words.

How do you not get that?

Originally Posted by dnno1

When getting into the legality of the acts of US goverment, we can only go by the the law (not just accusations) and by the law, you technically can't count a person who is harboring a member of Al Qaeda as a true civilian since they are considered a covered person under Subtitle D of the NDAA. The law is what governs the actions of the United states, not someones opinion.

Just because something's a law doesn't make it right. Just because the government has the legal right to kill the families of terrorists doesn't mean they should. They absolutely should not. My criticism was never that they were breaking the law, my criticism is that what they are doing is wrong. The legality of it doesn't matter, beyond it being abhorrent that such things are legal.

Originally Posted by dnno1

Even if you used the reports in the links you provided, the number of killed civilians is still more than half of those killed in the Persian Gulf War, which means that it is not at all true that these drones have killed more civilians that in other campaigns.

You misunderstood what I mean. I did not say these drone strikes have killed more than other military campaigns. At least, it was not my intent to say that. What I said is that these drone strikes have killed more civilians than the same missions carried out as manned operations would have. I apologize if I was not clear.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by The Question

It's completely unreliable because it sets a standard of what is and isn't an unnecessary civilian casualty that favors the people that are being accused, and was written by the people that are being accused.

You can't say "the government isn't guilty of killing a lot of civilians because, based on the government's definition of a civilian, the people who died weren't civilians." That's absolution of guilt simply by means of changing the definition of words.

How do you not get that?

Just because something's a law doesn't make it right. Just because the government has the legal right to kill the families of terrorists doesn't mean they should. They absolutely should not. My criticism was never that they were breaking the law, my criticism is that what they are doing is wrong. The legality of it doesn't matter, beyond it being abhorrent that such things are legal.

It doesn't make sense. The law is the law. Whether you think it's right or wrong that is what we go by (if you don't follow the law it could lead to criminal charges and penalties). We haven't killed 13,000 civilians with drone strikes in any case. The only way to change the state of affairs is to change the law, but right now the US government and its armed forces are within their powers to do what they are doing right now.

Originally Posted by The Question

You misunderstood what I mean. I did not say these drone strikes have killed more than other military campaigns. At least, it was not my intent to say that. What I said is that these drone strikes have killed more civilians than the same missions carried out as manned operations would have. I apologize if I was not clear.

Well I would question that. The closest thing to a drone strike was the German V-1 buzz bomb. They launched some 10,492 against London alone with about 2,419 hitting their targets, killing 6,184 dead and injuring 17,981 civilians. Of course the next thing close to it was the V-2. We won't talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki since those were manned missions (that that killed tens of thousands of civilians).

[The Question]

Originally Posted by dnno1

It doesn't make sense. The law is the law. Whether you think it's right or wrong that is what we go by (if you don't follow the law it could lead to criminal charges and penalties). We haven't killed 13,000 civilians with drone strikes in any case. The only way to change the state of affairs is to change the law, but right now the US government and its armed forces are within their powers to do what they are doing right now.

I never said they weren't. That was never in question. I said that they should not be doing it. The legality of it is not relevant, except that such things being legal is horrendous.

How does what I'm saying not make sense?

Originally Posted by dnno1

Well I would question that. The closest thing to a drone strike was the German V-1 buzz bomb. They launched some 10,492 against London alone with about 2,419 hitting their targets, killing 6,184 dead and injuring 17,981 civilians. Of course the next thing close to it was the V-2. We won't talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki since those were manned missions (that that killed tens of thousands of civilians).

I have no idea what you're talking about right now. Why are you bringing up World War II? What does that have to do with what I said?

[hippie_hunter]

Frankly dnno, if this were done by a Republican, I think you would be expressing a hell of a lot more outrage. This whole drone controversy really exposes the hypocrisy of American politics, the outrage from the right only comes from the fact that Obama is the one doing it and the lack of outrage from the left is simply because it's their guy doing it.

[Excel]

Ha N FREAKING WAY.

Drones will be viewed on a nuclear bomb like hatred level in a decade or so.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Ummm. The NDAA is law. How can that be unreliable?

Because the government's viewpoint has always been reliable.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Frankly dnno, if this were done by a Republican, I think you would be expressing a hell of a lot more outrage. This whole drone controversy really exposes the hypocrisy of American politics, the outrage from the right only comes from the fact that Obama is the one doing it and the lack of outrage from the left is simply because it's their guy doing it.

Actually I would be saying the same thing for a Republican as well. My point here is that right now a President can legally perform drone strikes as long as it is outside of the United States and its territories, the person being attacked is a member of, supports or harbors members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network, and he has the agreement of the invading country to interdict. As far as domestic terror goes, it would be subject to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Due process should be in play (although I can not say that it was for people like Chris Dorner). If you disagree with that then you should address your grievance with your Representative or Senator to repeal the AUMF. This may not stop the ability to perform drone strikes though. The most effective way would be to defund them completely.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by Excel

Ha N FREAKING WAY.

Drones will be viewed on a nuclear bomb like hatred level in a decade or so.

They are going to transform warfare as we know it like the aircraft carrier did some 70 years ago.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by The Question

I never said they weren't. That was never in question. I said that they should not be doing it. The legality of it is not relevant, except that such things being legal is horrendous.

How does what I'm saying not make sense?

You are still not making sense. The legality of it is relevant since it is the only way we can determine whether we can put a stop to it or not. If you don't agree with it, then I suggest you focus your energies on trying to change the law.

Originally Posted by The Question

I have no idea what you're talking about right now. Why are you bringing up World War II? What does that have to do with what I said?

You said that "drone strikes have killed more civilians than the same missions carried out as manned operations would have". That would include World War II. The nuclear strike on Hirosima killed more than 40,000 civilians instantly and another 60,000 to 90,000 later on by the radiation so what you said can't possibly be true. I was being nice by stratifying the case to something similar (V-1 buzz bomb attacks), but even that killed more civilians.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by dnno1

You are still not making sense. The legality of it is relevant since it is the only way we can determine whether we can put a stop to it or not. If you don't agree with it, then I suggest you focus your energies on trying to change the law.

I'm making perfect sense, the problem is that there seems to be a miscommunication here. I never said the legality of it was irrelevant in regards to changing it, it absolutely is. I said the legality of it is irrelevant in regards to wether or not it's a good thing.

Originally Posted by dnno1

You said that "drone strikes have killed more civilians than the same missions carried out as manned operations would have". That would include World War II. The nuclear strike on Hirosima killed more than 40,000 civilians instantly and another 60,000 to 90,000 later on by the radiation so what you said can't possibly be true. I was being nice by stratifying the case to something similar (V-1 buzz bomb attacks), but even that killed more civilians.

That wouldn't include World War II because I wasn't talking about World War II, I was talking about current military operations. Of course the nuclear strikes killed more civilians, they were nuclear strikes, nuclear strikes are inherently more indiscriminately destructive than any other kind of military offensive. Seeing as how the drone strikes don't carry nuclear payloads I don't see how it's relevant.

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by The Question

I'm making perfect sense, the problem is that there seems to be a miscommunication here. I never said the legality of it was irrelevant in regards to changing it, it absolutely is. I said the legality of it is irrelevant in regards to wether or not it's a good thing.

Well, whether it's a good thing or not is not relevant since what is law is law. If you follow the law, then you can't be held accountable for a crime. This is the government's claim (indirectly).

Originally Posted by The Question

That wouldn't include World War II because I wasn't talking about World War II, I was talking about current military operations. Of course the nuclear strikes killed more civilians, they were nuclear strikes, nuclear strikes are inherently more indiscriminately destructive than any other kind of military offensive. Seeing as how the drone strikes don't carry nuclear payloads I don't see how it's relevant.

You did not say that you weren't talking about WWII. You just said any manned missions. If you are talking about a specific campaign, you need to state that. If you are talking about current military operations, the truth of the matter is that we are getting more precise strikes from the drones than from manned aircraft. I remember one strike where a B-1B bomber dropped four JDAM bombs on a restaurant in Iraq. The strike left a crater 60' deep and killed dozens of civilians buy neither of Saddam Hussein's sons (the target of the strike) were there. The point of that allegory was that it isn't the type of mission (manned or unmanned) but the accuracy of the intelligence. At least with a drone strike there is the opportunity to loiter around the target until you are certain it is actually there. As far as the number of civilian casualties, you will also notice that over the past ten years the number of casualties have decreased. Just over the past 4 years the number of casualties have dropped from 42% down to about 2% according to the New America Foundation.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by dnno1

Well, whether it's a good thing or not is not relevant since what is law is law. If you follow the law, then you can't be held accountable for a crime. This is the government's claim (indirectly).

Wether or not it's a good thing is absolutely relevant. Knowing wether or not it's a good thing tells you if the law is crap and needs to be changed. Knowing wether or not it's a good thing tells you when we need to stop doing it.

Originally Posted by dnno1

You did not say that you weren't talking about WWII. You just said any manned missions.

No I did not. I said:

"these drone strikes have killed more civilians than the same missions carried out as manned operations would have."

Those were my exact words. Not "any," but "the same." As in, if the drone strikes had been manned missions instead. World War II has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by dnno1

If you are talking about a specific campaign, you need to state that. If you are talking about current military operations, the truth of the matter is that we are getting more precise strikes from the drones than from manned aircraft. I remember one strike where a B-1B bomber dropped four JDAM bombs on a restaurant in Iraq. The strike left a crater 60' deep and killed dozens of civilians buy neither of Saddam Hussein's sons (the target of the strike) were there. The point of that allegory was that it isn't the type of mission (manned or unmanned) but the accuracy of the intelligence. At least with a drone strike there is the opportunity to loiter around the target until you are certain it is actually there. As far as the number of civilian casualties, you will also notice that over the past ten years the number of casualties have decreased. Just over the past 4 years the number of casualties have dropped from 42% down to about 2% according to the New America Foundation.

According to researchers from Stanford and New York University, the opposite is the case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...a-drone-deaths

Columbia Law has quite a few things to say on the matter as well:

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/de...f%20Drones.pdf

I ask, is the drop you're talking about because fewer civilians are dying, or because we redefined what a civilian is?

[dnno1]

Originally Posted by The Question

Wether or not it's a good thing is absolutely relevant. Knowing wether or not it's a good thing tells you if the law is crap and needs to be changed. Knowing wether or not it's a good thing tells you when we need to stop doing it.

There are lots of laws that are not a good think but we still have to follow them since they are enforce. The good or bad of them is not relevant for that reason.

Originally Posted by The Question

No I did not. I said:

"these drone strikes have killed more civilians than the same missions carried out as manned operations would have."

Those were my exact words. Not "any," but "the same." As in, if the drone strikes had been manned missions instead. World War II has nothing to do with it.

One could argue that a V-1 strike on London is the same as a drone strike according to your claim. It says nothing about the time period nor campaign.

Originally Posted by The Question

According to researchers from Stanford and New York University, the opposite is the case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...a-drone-deaths



Columbia Law has quite a few things to say on the matter as well:

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/de...f%20Drones.pdf

I ask, is the drop you're talking about because fewer civilians are dying, or because we redefined what a civilian is?

I hate to bust your bubble but both of those reports you cited admit that they rely on data coming from the BIJ and the NAF. They may have interviewed some civilians where the strikes occur, but the only thing these studies added were what the impact of the strike had on the civilian population. The truth of the matter is that you may never be able to independently verify the exact number of civilians killed (particularly in Pakistan) in these strikes since 1) there is no civilian casualty reporting unit similar to the one run by the UN and 2) There is no incentive for people living in the tribal regions where most of the strikes occur to report that victims of drone attacks were terrorists. Erik Voten wrote a report on this about a month before the Stanford report was published.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

I am okay with the drones in extreme cases such as Marvolo's example. The drones themselves are gray; its whoever is in power and using the drones that I would be more concerned about