Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

President has the right to use drones in the USA on American citizens Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)

    What else is the International Current Affairs sub forum meant to have? :holmes:
    I don't know. hmm.. International current affairs maybe?
    Not copied and pasted bits of an article ...
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The US has already used drones in extra-judicial killings of US citizens outside of America. If Americans have that right outside of America, why not in America too? America's judiciary system is exceptionally dangerous.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Botox)
    I don't know. hmm.. International current affairs maybe?
    Not copied and pasted bits of an article ...
    Bits of article are often a good base for debate on a topic such as this. If nothing else, it saves on the "Source?" posts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    Bits of article are often a good base for debate on a topic such as this. If nothing else, it saves on the "Source?" posts.
    Yeah, I get so bored of that 'source?' snipe in threads.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Botox)
    I don't know. hmm.. International current affairs maybe?
    Not copied and pasted bits of an article ...
    The US Attorney General confirming that Obama is legally authorised to murder his own citizens using predator drones is not 'international current affairs', just because I used the newspaper article to confirm it's a true story?? :facepalm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    They are all, currently, operated out of Nevada. None - not even the ones we own and operate - are yet controlled from Britain.
    Not so, there is a base in Lincs I believe.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-from-UK.html
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Not so, there is a base in Lincs I believe.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-from-UK.html
    That might have been the plan, but it has not happened. 39 sqn are, nominally, based at RAF Waddington, just outside Lincoln, but their crews all work out of Creech AFB in Nevada.

    I'm former RAF and know people who work with the programme.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    'Gasp' is probably the best response to this story. :eek:

    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/worl...n-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 and (now) Britain.
    What's the big difference between a missile fired from a predator drone as opposed to one fired by a manned aircraft?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    That might have been the plan, but it has not happened. 39 sqn are, nominally, based at RAF Waddington, just outside Lincoln, but their crews all work out of Creech AFB in Nevada.

    I'm former RAF and know people who work with the programme.
    OK. Why haven't they done so? Political reasons?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    Behind every robot is a human. Why not use robots instead of risking the lives of the people behind them?
    We can't give the machines too much power and ability or they may turn on us one day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Doesn't the President (or any leader, for that matter) have the right to declare martial law in times of emergency? Surely this is just a logical extension of that? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chillaxer)
    Just more and more perverse things happening to civil liberties that are becoming, insidiously, routine. More things which America will most probably hand on to us too.
    You could use that argument to say that allowing police/military to fly helicopters (or use any type of technology whatsoever) is against your civil liberties.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    We can't give the machines too much power and ability or they may turn on us one day.
    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...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    OK. Why haven't they done so? Political reasons?
    Nope. Well, not directly. Money, most likely. It's cheaper to co-locate them with the US' equipment than it is to have stand alone kit.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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...
    Might just be a matter of programming, but a human still has to write that programme. And therein lies human error. If we can't always fully recognise a situation, what makes you think a computer can?

    Or, more accurately, when a situation looks like x on first glance, but then on 4th look actually ends up being y or z, then what?

    Show me someone who's never made a mistake and I'll show you someone who's either never tried, or is a pathological liar.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    'Gasp' is probably the best response to this story. :eek:
    Not really, they are just changing the methodology in which the US air force operates within its air space. To a cheaper, more cost-affordable option.

    I've also got a couple of objections towards your earlier posts, I'll go into detail later.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It's also worth noting that various law enforcement bodies in the US have been using earlier variations of the Predator [ie, the ones that couldn't carry weapons, only cameras] for a while now, especially border control agencies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Might just be a matter of programming, but a human still has to write that programme. And therein lies human error. If we can't always fully recognise a situation, what makes you think a computer can?

    Or, more accurately, when a situation looks like x on first glance, but then on 4th look actually ends up being y or z, then what?

    Show me someone who's never made a mistake and I'll show you someone who's either never tried, or is a pathological liar.
    With respect, this just seems like a mistrust of new technology. Obviously putting your faith in a machine is a big leap of faith, but if you're happy to say... fly in a plane (and put your life in the hands of the computers that help the pilot etc.), then you're clearly happy to trust machines with human life (as long as they've been fully tested/proven to work etc.). I know you'd need a very good AI to actually be good enough to control a predator and not kill lots of civilians, but if such a machine was produced (that was as good as - or better than a manned jet fighter), I don't think there should be an issue.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see what people's obsession is with drones, its not even a ****ing drone, its a remote controlled plane. The issues surely is with the hellfire missile not the vehicle that delivers it. If he gets a F22 to drop a bomb its still just as bad for the target.

    UAV's are going to be everywhere soon, just like CCTV cameras.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    With respect, this just seems like a mistrust of new technology. Obviously putting your faith in a machine is a big leap of faith, but if you're happy to say... fly in a plane (and put your life in the hands of the computers that help the pilot etc.), then you're clearly happy to trust machines with human life (as long as they've been fully tested/proven to work etc.). I know you'd need a very good AI to actually be good enough to control a predator and not kill lots of civilians, but if such a machine was produced (that was as good as - or better than a manned jet fighter), I don't think there should be an issue.
    My issue is with taking people out of the process altogether. Yes, we have computer aiding people. An autopilot helps the Pilot control the aircraft better. But we still have Pilots on board every single commercial aircraft.

    We should always retain oversight. And that means having a human in the loop somewhere.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.