President has the right to use drones in the USA on American citizens
Scroll to see replies
Surely futuristic drone based combat is a good thing? Drone v. Drone will see robots slogging it out rather than actual human soldiers, cutting losses there. Inevitably there will be collateral damage, but isn't that an aspect of conventional war? Minus the rape and pillage of course. Plus let's not forget that this will become a war of science and minds, technology will see even greater leaps and bounds and stretch the imagination of future generations. Education in the sciences will take off, as well as jobs in the military science sectors. Those afraid of indescriminate mass destruction, that won't happen. Overpopulation will soon become a huge problem. Firing high power weapons at other nations will simply damage the landscape and make colonisation near impossible, not to mention the wastage of resources.
Less human deaths: less human soldiers, less collateral damage (more accurate, reduced human element of 'evil'), greater scientific advances.
Or would you rather have us brutally murdering each other with sticks and stones? We're violent creatures. Drones have indirect benefits.
Less human deaths: less human soldiers, less collateral damage (more accurate, reduced human element of 'evil'), greater scientific advances.
Or would you rather have us brutally murdering each other with sticks and stones? We're violent creatures. Drones have indirect benefits.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
'Gasp' is probably the best response to this story. 
US Attorney General Eric Holder has just informed the US Senate Judiciary Committee that President Obama has the legal right to use drone strikes against US citizens within the United States!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html
With this having been made clear, it can only be a matter of time before it is confirmed that the US regards this as a global authorisation - they nearly always project their laws abroad, as if US law prevails everywhere.
It is not impossible to imagine US predator drones being used over the UK, indeed, one can't help wondering if there have already been test flights. It isn't plausible that we can depend on our own supine government to defend us from this threat.
The use of drones is becoming increasingly amoral, sinister and depraved. In Afghanistan, they have remote-killed thousands of civilians, operated by desktop workers from Nevada, who commute into work from their suburban homes.
US Attorney General Eric Holder has just informed the US Senate Judiciary Committee that President Obama has the legal right to use drone strikes against US citizens within the United States!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html
With this having been made clear, it can only be a matter of time before it is confirmed that the US regards this as a global authorisation - they nearly always project their laws abroad, as if US law prevails everywhere.
It is not impossible to imagine US predator drones being used over the UK, indeed, one can't help wondering if there have already been test flights. It isn't plausible that we can depend on our own supine government to defend us from this threat.
The use of drones is becoming increasingly amoral, sinister and depraved. In Afghanistan, they have remote-killed thousands of civilians, operated by desktop workers from Nevada, who commute into work from their suburban homes.
I agree with this fully. I don't agree with your last comment
The citizens are in the way. They try not to kill them. If they do kill them, they kill them. The mission must be complete as we can't afford any of our own casualties.
Since when have the use of drones become amoral? The drones are there to protect the menand to complete the overall operation, they're not created for morals. They're of great use for recce, controlling airspace, helping ground troops and for scaring the enemy.
Do you have a job?
If so. You're doing your job, the Drone Operator is doing their own job.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by doggyfizzel
They are never going to be sanctioned, they were told by a military lawyer that the people they shot were valid targets, they waited 15mins for confirmation. The second incident with the two apaches, there are two weapons which means they are legally allowed to engage. You issues rules of engagement and you have to hold personnel to them and protect them within. I'm not saying the rules of engagement are fair or you should be using a helicopter designed for attacking Soviet armour in a built up city, but you cannot issues rule of engagement then take action against military personnel who operate within them.
Well, it's either the pilots themselves, or the mania for low-risk mass killing that typifies the US "military response", but either way, they are hardly behaving in a way justified by the situations. Despite all the rhetoric, the US remains overwhelmingly stronger than any of these 'terror' groups, who are really ants kicking an elephant. The lack of morality in the response is gross and I think the more people look at it, the more sickened they get, which is why very large numbers of people turned against the war in Iraq and (increasingly) the ghastly and pointless intervention in Afghanistan.
Oh and please nobody start saying it was all for the 'women of Afghanistan' - I'm sure they need help, but that isn't why the US is in there. The aim of both wars was to encircle Iran and protect US oil interests. There was zero interest in the status of women in those countries in the upper reaches of the Pentagon, the White House and Wall St.
The extent to which the militarists are flocking to this thread in praise of Drone killings only confirms my suggestion that their use will inevitably widen and extend to civilian situations in all countries. It really is only a matter of time before they are in use in the skies of Europe, armed with what we will be assured are 'humane' weapons.
In the future, will America even bother with extradition? Maybe they'll just send drones over to Kim Dotcom's house and abduct him.
I'd have to hope that this logical step is a bit pessimistic. I know in practice this is sometimes true but it's just too reminiscent of the constant bombings of questionable origin in 1984.
Yes I agree, especially given how complicit we have been in their use so far.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
US Attorney General Eric Holder has just informed the US Senate Judiciary Committee that President Obama has the legal right to use drone strikes against US citizens within the United States! ... With this having been made clear, it can only be a matter of time before it is confirmed that the US regards this as a global authorisation
I'd have to hope that this logical step is a bit pessimistic. I know in practice this is sometimes true but it's just too reminiscent of the constant bombings of questionable origin in 1984.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It is not impossible to imagine US predator drones being used over the UK, indeed, one can't help wondering if there have already been test flights. It isn't plausible that we can depend on our own supine government to defend us from this threat.
Yes I agree, especially given how complicit we have been in their use so far.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The extent to which the militarists are flocking to this thread in praise of Drone killings only confirms my suggestion that their use will inevitably widen and extend to civilian situations in all countries. It really is only a matter of time before they are in use in the skies of Europe, armed with what we will be assured are 'humane' weapons.
Now you're beginning to sound like an absolute nutter.
Because a few people on a student forum are explaining why the use of UAVs isn't the problem you now expect them to take over the earth? You should really take a step back from the computer.
Your issue is not with the UAV, it's with the use of the UAV. At least aim your vitriol at the right thing.
Original post by mikeyd85
I have the feeling it's more to do with not being able to identify accurately between enemy, friendly and civilian. Worrying considering that's just a matter of programming...
No. There are other reasons. It''ll cost too much, human infantry is much more mobile, human infantrymen can be trained more, human infantrymen are more reliable, people would have to reload the robot anyway, human infantry can be organised more, people are always there to use, not having human infantrymen in the military would cause an uproar, too many cuts are happening, people would lose their jobs, and the traditions of the infantry would be ruined.
Original post by Drewski
Now you're beginning to sound like an absolute nutter.
Because a few people on a student forum are explaining why the use of UAVs isn't the problem you now expect them to take over the earth? You should really take a step back from the computer.
Your issue is not with the UAV, it's with the use of the UAV. At least aim your vitriol at the right thing.
Because a few people on a student forum are explaining why the use of UAVs isn't the problem you now expect them to take over the earth? You should really take a step back from the computer.
Your issue is not with the UAV, it's with the use of the UAV. At least aim your vitriol at the right thing.
Everyone on this site is a guaranteed student?
I was raising it as a representation - the gung-ho attitude to these 'kill from a comfy chair' machines is widespread in the military and amongst US politicians.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The extent to which the militarists are flocking to this thread in praise of Drone killings only confirms my suggestion that their use will inevitably widen and extend to civilian situations in all countries. It really is only a matter of time before they are in use in the skies of Europe, armed with what we will be assured are 'humane' weapons.
The use of drones should widen.
I'm not praising the use of civilian casualties, I'm merely stating that it does happen. A small loss for a big gain.
Technology is rapidly improving in the military, the drones will certainly be used in many countries.
They are humane weapons. Since when has a weapon become humane, or inhumane? A weapon is made to harm you, not to tickle you.
It is assured. I think you've been watching too many Sci-Fi films, go to bed dear.
Original post by CrusaderMkII
Surely futuristic drone based combat is a good thing? Drone v. Drone will see robots slogging it out rather than actual human soldiers, cutting losses there. Inevitably there will be collateral damage, but isn't that an aspect of conventional war? Minus the rape and pillage of course. Plus let's not forget that this will become a war of science and minds, technology will see even greater leaps and bounds and stretch the imagination of future generations. Education in the sciences will take off, as well as jobs in the military science sectors. Those afraid of indescriminate mass destruction, that won't happen. Overpopulation will soon become a huge problem. Firing high power weapons at other nations will simply damage the landscape and make colonisation near impossible, not to mention the wastage of resources.
Less human deaths: less human soldiers, less collateral damage (more accurate, reduced human element of 'evil'), greater scientific advances.
Or would you rather have us brutally murdering each other with sticks and stones? We're violent creatures. Drones have indirect benefits.
Less human deaths: less human soldiers, less collateral damage (more accurate, reduced human element of 'evil'), greater scientific advances.
Or would you rather have us brutally murdering each other with sticks and stones? We're violent creatures. Drones have indirect benefits.
Drone V Drone is all well and good, but what about Hitler's policy of destroying the British spirit by bombing residential areas instead of more strategically viable targets like ports and army bases? What's to stop one country targeting another's population instead?
Original post by lonelybrummie
It is assured. I think you've been watching too many Sci-Fi films, go to bed dear.
It is assured. I think you've been watching too many Sci-Fi films, go to bed dear.
Well - it's true that I often don't sleep well after watching sci-fi movies - yeah, you may be on to something there dearie.
Original post by tjf8
Drone V Drone is all well and good, but what about Hitler's policy of destroying the British spirit by bombing residential areas instead of more strategically viable targets like ports and army bases? What's to stop one country targeting another's population instead?
I'm sure China is busy manufacturing a new range of superdrones.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Everyone on this site is a guaranteed student?
I was raising it as a representation - the gung-ho attitude to these 'kill from a comfy chair' machines is widespread in the military and amongst US politicians.
I was raising it as a representation - the gung-ho attitude to these 'kill from a comfy chair' machines is widespread in the military and amongst US politicians.
In a tank you're causing damage while sitting down, in a helicopter you're causing damage while sitting down, in a fighter jet your causing damage while sitting down, you're causing damage in a self-propelled artillery while sitting down, and even horse archers caused damage while sitting down.
I used the word damage because they don't just kill people.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I'm sure China is busy manufacturing a new range of superdrones.
Well that £79 billion in 2013 has to go somewhere, why not invest in the future?
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I'm sure China is busy manufacturing a new range of superdrones.
To be a superpower you need a very strong military. In my opinion, every country must have at least a good military.
I've already outlined the positives of drone warfare, but here's another thought. In the olden days of parchment maps and the cane, a criminal could hide pretty easily and escape justice. Today this is getting harder, with satellite scanning and so on. But it is still possible to disappear into the mountains/desert.
Drones allow us to cover vast areas of ground, deploy advanced searching technologies and find criminals. By criminal I'm talking both about the petty bike theft, as well as the genocidal despots that pop up every now and again. The US has been researching non lethal technology for years. Non lethal drones would be able to find and apprehend, say, the common bike thief, whilst the police officer physically cannot keep up or track the miscreant. In this case justice is pursued more efficiently by a robot.
Looking at the other type of criminal, the genocidal despot, drones make it far easier, far quicker and far safer to track and neutralise them. An army of drones in the sky would surely have made it far easier to find, for example, Bin Laden than an invasive, disruptive force of boots on the ground. Physical soldiers setting up in foreign countries, whether for humanitarian aid, for invasion or for peace keeping, is an out dated concept. They put themselves as soldiers at risk, and end up causing rifts in the society they are planted into.
Those against drones are burying their heads in the sand to the positives, and unfairly pointing out negatives. When nuclear weapons arrived there was much fear over them being deployed: the same thing is occuring with drones. A drone is not necessarily an armed killing machine. You cannot call others armchair warriors when you fail to realise their law enforcement potential as non lethal tools. Civilians are not always good, honest folk. There will always be bad folk. Drones are simply a tool of justice.
You're argument would be stronger if it was based more against the users of the drones, rather than the drones themselves.
Drones allow us to cover vast areas of ground, deploy advanced searching technologies and find criminals. By criminal I'm talking both about the petty bike theft, as well as the genocidal despots that pop up every now and again. The US has been researching non lethal technology for years. Non lethal drones would be able to find and apprehend, say, the common bike thief, whilst the police officer physically cannot keep up or track the miscreant. In this case justice is pursued more efficiently by a robot.
Looking at the other type of criminal, the genocidal despot, drones make it far easier, far quicker and far safer to track and neutralise them. An army of drones in the sky would surely have made it far easier to find, for example, Bin Laden than an invasive, disruptive force of boots on the ground. Physical soldiers setting up in foreign countries, whether for humanitarian aid, for invasion or for peace keeping, is an out dated concept. They put themselves as soldiers at risk, and end up causing rifts in the society they are planted into.
Those against drones are burying their heads in the sand to the positives, and unfairly pointing out negatives. When nuclear weapons arrived there was much fear over them being deployed: the same thing is occuring with drones. A drone is not necessarily an armed killing machine. You cannot call others armchair warriors when you fail to realise their law enforcement potential as non lethal tools. Civilians are not always good, honest folk. There will always be bad folk. Drones are simply a tool of justice.
You're argument would be stronger if it was based more against the users of the drones, rather than the drones themselves.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Everyone on this site is a guaranteed student?
I was raising it as a representation - the gung-ho attitude to these 'kill from a comfy chair' machines is widespread in the military and amongst US politicians.
I was raising it as a representation - the gung-ho attitude to these 'kill from a comfy chair' machines is widespread in the military and amongst US politicians.
Believe me, the chairs aren't as comfy as you'd think. And it's not as if the seats in combat aircraft were uncomfortable in the first place.
And you might have been. Doesn't stop you coming across like a raving nutter unsure of what to be angry against and sounding like you're being angry for the sake of being angry.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I'm sure China is busy manufacturing a new range of superdrones.
They're having enough difficulties building aircraft for people, let alone those without. But they'll get around to it. It's called progress, whether you like it or not.
Original post by the bear
Compared to the indiscriminate carnage wreaked by suicide bombers in Pakistani towns the UAV missions are humane. If you google " pakistan suicide bomb" you will find plenty to read. The horror these things are inflicting on ordinary people is terrible.
Hahah the people in the Pakistani tribal areas are Pashtuns to their core and their tradition of "Badal" (revenge) will ensure the Americans have no shortage of "terrorists" to fight in the near future. Kill an innocent accidentally or otherwise and their family will often turn to desperate means to avenge their loved ones and for that I certainly don't blame them.
I wonder what will happen if tomorrow the Americans launch a drone strike against a "terrorist" in central London and dismiss the civilian casualties as collateral damage.
Pakistani/Afghan lives are worth less than American ones apparently. Don't be surprised when these people retaliate in revenge and if and when they do blame yourselves and your own governments.
Pakistani/Afghan lives are worth less than American ones apparently. Don't be surprised when these people retaliate in revenge and if and when they do blame yourselves and your own governments.
Original post by Inzamam99
I wonder what will happen if tomorrow the Americans launch a drone strike against a "terrorist" in central London and dismiss the civilian casualties as collateral damage.
Pakistani/Afghan lives are worth less than American ones apparently. Don't be surprised when these people retaliate in revenge and if and when they do blame yourselves and your own governments.
Pakistani/Afghan lives are worth less than American ones apparently. Don't be surprised when these people retaliate in revenge and if and when they do blame yourselves and your own governments.
The 'first use' in the European theatre will be against a supposed 'Muslim terror' target, perhaps offshore or in somewhere like Kosovo or the Med or something like that. From there, it will be constantly stepped up, until there is a constant overhead drone presence in all areas and regular airstrikes on homes in Luton, etc. Well, of course, the latter may be intended as irony, but time will tell if it really is just a joke.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado and Maine in 2024 Election
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Is there any chance of getting a job in America with just a BTEC?
- What do you think will happen to Donald the dump Trump?
- who is donald trump
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- Read & Marking History A-level Essay on American Dream
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- OCR A level History
- Why was Herbert Hoover regarded as the worst President?
- US launches retaliatory strikes in response to Jordan attack
- Should TikTok get banned?
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: The United States
- criminal justice/criminology
- British NASA
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Law essay competition feedback?
- Unethical American Surveillance Recently,
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
