Should drones be used to fight domestic terrorism?

[MessiahDecoy123]

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

 

[The Question]

God no. The single largest flaw with drones is that they produce much higher civilian casualty rates than manned missions.

 

[dnno1]

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

You can't shoot people down (domestic terrorist or otherwise) with drone strikes like you can outside of the US and its territories since the Constitution would apply here. Yes, due process and the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would be in force here.

 

[Paradoxium]

Yes obviously. Preferably anyone that does not agree with the government.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yes obviously. Preferably anyone that does not agree with the government.

What if their guilt is in question?

Shouldn't they have the right to prove their innocence before they're blown to pieces.

Do you trust government leaders that much? What if Americans elect a bad person? What do you do then? Your rights are already gone.

 

[enterthemadness]

Yes obviously. Preferably anyone that does not agree with the government.

So, as a Libertarian, I shouldn't be posting crap about the two parties?

Last night I posted a rotten e-card to my wall on facebook...-_-...of my views of the Republican Party. 'Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Hell who am I kidding. I hope you *beep* fall down the stairs too.''

Couldn't say it any better rotten e-card...

 

[KalMart]

What drones are we talking about...are there actual robots that have this ability now?


If not, then even hypothetically, what advantage are we seeking by not using humans?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

You can't shoot people down (domestic terrorist or otherwise) with drone strikes like you can outside of the US and its territories since the Constitution would apply here. Yes, due process and the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would be in force here.

Well that's how things started with indefinite detainment without trail.

Now they can do it on American soil.

These anti-terrorist measures are a slippery slope.

 

[Paradoxium]

Well the people voted for Obama after he "DRoWnEd" a 16 year old American citizen who happen to have a terrorist father. That was enough of a threshold. The democracy obviously supports it. So why does it matter if guilt is important. I say give the voters the government they deserve.

 

[dnno1]

God no. The single largest flaw with drones is that they produce much higher civilian casualty rates than manned missions.

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.

 

[Schlosser85]

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.

All you have to do is watch the news to know drones produce far more civilian casualties than they're supposed to.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Well the people voted for Obama after he "DRoWnEd" a 16 year old American citizen who happen to have a terrorist father. That was enough of a threshold. The democracy obviously supports it. So why does it matter if guilt is important. I say give the voters the government they deserve.

The government/corporations doesn't allow true democracy. Gary Johnson, one of the few candidates who would oppose drones wasn't allowed to debate on national tv.

 

[Paradoxium]

So what if "the true Democracy" determines drone strikes are alright?

 

[dnno1]

Well that's how things started with indefinite detainment without trail.

Now they can do it on American soil.

These anti-terrorist measures are a slippery slope.

That's not true. The NDAA specifically states that these actions do not apply to U.S. citizens or resident aliens (within the United States).

 

[Paradoxium]

I personally against drone strikes. But politically it scores many goody points. Out of sight, out of mind. You don't see troops being killed or crippled. None of that image on the teletube. A crippled soldier probably does more bad PR, than a couple hundred drOWNed vaporized brown children.

 

[Paradoxium]

Report: Ex-Cop Christopher Dorner Is Now a Target for Drones

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So what if "the true Democracy" determines drone strikes are alright?

Yeah you have a point.

The public is easy to trick. All it takes is a boogie man killing a few people and Americans will give up rights we've had in this country for hundreds of years.

 

[enterthemadness]

That's not true. The NDAA specifically states that these actions do not apply to U.S. citizens or resident aliens (within the United States).

Doesn't it say something about associated forces and is vague on that part?

I personally against drone strikes. But politically it scores many goody points. Out of sight, out of mind. You don't see troops being killed or crippled. None of that image on the teletube. A crippled soldier probably does more bad PR, than a couple hundred drOWNed vaporized brown children.

Once again, drone strikes are a act of war. And other countries are getting drones years from now. And I doubt all of them like us. So, I hope, ya know, America doesn't ***** and say 'You can't drone us or it's war' when that's a ***** statement, considering we commit acts of war all the time without Congress approval.

 

[Paradoxium]

The LAPD look so incompetent now, with arresting, raming and shooting at trucks with hispanic ladies and black guys at random. It wouldn't shock me if they fire a drone on Dorner. He is successfully evading them, all the while, getting the cops to enrage people. Evading, documenting and killling cops at the same time.

 

[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?

 

[Paradoxium]

Dude is trolling them hard. I fathom this could go on for a while.

Incompetence.

PR Fail.

With a dose of misdirection and a touch of troll.

I wonder if they are stupid enough to drone bomb him, because he is probably baiting them into it.

 

[dnno1]

Doesn't it say something about associated forces and is vague on that part?

It says that you have to be a covered person and that would mean that you planned, committed, or aided in the 9/11 attacks, were part of or substantially supported Al Qaida, the Taliban, or were part of associated forces who engaged in hostilities against the United States. Even with that, the law states that nothing in that section should "be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." If you are a U.S. Citizen or lawful resident alien (or for that matter, within the united states or its territories), you are entitled to due process.

Once again, drone strikes are a act of war. And other countries are getting drones years from now. And I doubt all of them like us. So, I hope, ya know, America doesn't ***** and say 'You can't drone us or it's war' when that's a ***** statement, considering we commit acts of war all the time without Congress approval.

Not if the invaded country consented to the use of Drones or if you are already at war. According to reports, there have only been six countries where drone strikes have been occurring: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Of these nations, three of them (Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia) had consented (explicitly or otherwise) to the United States using Drones within their territories and were safe havens for groups that launched attacks against the US and its interest. The United States was already engaged in combat operations in the other three nations (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya), so to say it was an act of war is kind of trivial there since they already were. What the US is doing with its drone policy is arguably legal.

 

[enterthemadness]

It says that you have to be a covered person and that would mean that you planned, committed, or aided in the 9/11 attacks, were part of or substantially supported Al Qaida, the Taliban, or were part of associated forces who engaged in hostilities against the United States. Even with that, the law states that nothing in that section should "be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." If you are a U.S. Citizen or lawful resident alien (or for that matter, within the united states or its territories), you are entitled to due process.



Not if the invaded country consented to the use of Drones or if you are already at war. According to reports, there have only been six countries where drone strikes have been occurring: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Of these nations, three of them (Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia) had consented (explicitly or otherwise) to the United States using Drones within their territories and were safe havens for groups that launched attacks against the US and its interest. The United States was already engaged in combat operations in the other three nations (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya), so to say it was an act of war is kind of trivial there since they already were. What the US is doing with its drone policy is arguably legal.

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

 

[Paradoxium]

It should be noted they are using drones to hunt him, not bomb him.

 

[Destructus86]

It should be noted they are using drones to hunt him, not bomb him.

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