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 MatureStudent36)
    I guess she'll be getting freaked out when she reads this then

    http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/srg_s...-01-180604.pdf

    UAVs coming to the uk soon
    She's so annoying. I mean she doesn't listen to anyone, I'd hate to meet her in real life.

    That'll kill her!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lonelybrummie)
    She's so annoying. I mean she doesn't listen to anyone, I'd hate to meet her in real life.

    That'll kill her!
    Shes not annoying. She just holds a different viewpoint based on bounded rationality
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Shes not annoying. She just holds a different viewpoint based on bounded rationality
    True.

    She doesn't listen to anyone other than herself though. I mean she keeps on going on about how drones do this and that, yet she doesn't see what good we do and what bad the enemy does.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Apologist implies I'am somehow directly or indirectly defending the Taliban when in actual fact my aim is to demonstrate to you not only your hypocrisy but that of the West and the latter's misguided policies. In terms of human cost, Taliban atrocities have been admittedly worse but your strategy of making the Northern Alliance the good guys on the basis that they have killed less is a touch flawed. People like Dostum are still responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and indeed currently it is you who stands as an apologetic for murderers and warlords not me. Scapegoating Pakistan of course is a fairly common approach for the West which continues to try and shovel off the blame for the mess in Afghanistan on any other party it possibly can.

    I'll reply in full later.
    I've never defended Dostum, once again putting words in my mouth. The only Northern Alliance faction I advocated was Ahmad Shah Massoud's. I'd like to know where I'm even defending the actions of Northern Alliance? If you bother to actually re-read my post, I said the Mujahideen were the 'freedom fighters'. Just as the Taliban is not the same, neither is the Northern Alliance. There's no scapegoating of Pakistan, they are guilty of everything I accuse them of, are you denying they fully backed the Taliban? Are you denying they continue to support them today, even while sending troops to die fighting them?
    Sure, the UIF were hardly angels, but they (Massoud's faction) advocated a secular democracy with equal rights, and were by far the lesser of two evils. They certainly wouldn't have harboured Al Qaeda and allowed them to plan attacks on the West. There's no hypocrisy at all, you need to stop trying to compare unequal situations.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Hows this different to just shooting somebody. Predators are a great piece if kit. Incidentally you may want to read this before you start saying the yanks are pushing people around.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone...ks_in_Pakistan

    it would appear that the Pakistanis let it happen.
    Where have I purported this assertion? I don't get what you're asking or trying to get out of me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    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.
    They aren't extra-judicial. All of these strikes have been against enemy combatants - a legitimate target under IHL and American law. The strikes are regulated by the issues of Congress and are open to challenge in US courts. To suggest they happen purely outside of the legal realm is specious.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    They aren't extra-judicial. All of these strikes have been against enemy combatants - a legitimate target under IHL and American law. The strikes are regulated by the issues of Congress and are open to challenge in US courts. To suggest they happen purely outside of the legal realm is specious.
    They are perfectly extra-judicial; these people had no access to judicial process, their death warrants were signed personally by Obama, and the evidence that they were 'enemy combatants' has often been poor, and much of it kept secret. What we do know is that this evidence has often been so misguided that entire groups of people have been attacked because congregating together is suspicious. The legality of the US' use of drones is currently under investigation by the UN, but meanwhile the death toll of known innocents continues to rise as the US makes clear its disregard for human rights.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I've never defended Dostum, once again putting words in my mouth. The only Northern Alliance faction I advocated was Ahmad Shah Massoud's. I'd like to know where I'm even defending the actions of Northern Alliance? If you bother to actually re-read my post, I said the Mujahideen were the 'freedom fighters'. Just as the Taliban is not the same, neither is the Northern Alliance. There's no scapegoating of Pakistan, they are guilty of everything I accuse them of, are you denying they fully backed the Taliban? Are you denying they continue to support them today, even while sending troops to die fighting them?
    Sure, the UIF were hardly angels, but they (Massoud's faction) advocated a secular democracy with equal rights, and were by far the lesser of two evils. They certainly wouldn't have harboured Al Qaeda and allowed them to plan attacks on the West. There's no hypocrisy at all, you need to stop trying to compare unequal situations.
    Didn't Massoud advocate an Islamic state? If no, can you provide me with a source..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 419)
    Where have I purported this assertion? I don't get what you're asking or trying to get out of me.

    You used the word bully
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    They are perfectly extra-judicial; these people had no access to judicial process, their death warrants were signed personally by Obama, and the evidence that they were 'enemy combatants' has often been poor, and much of it kept secret. What we do know is that this evidence has often been so misguided that entire groups of people have been attacked because congregating together is suspicious. The legality of the US' use of drones is currently under investigation by the UN, but meanwhile the death toll of known innocents continues to rise as the US makes clear its disregard for human rights.
    They do not need access to judicial process. They are considered enemy combatants of the USA as members of organisations that Congress has officially declared war on. The Constitution permits the Commander-in-Chief to authorise the killing of enemies during a war. Just because they are US citizens does not exempt them from this (in the same way that British citizens in Northern Ireland working for the IRA were considered enemy combatants). Congress authorised the war with al-Qaeda in Public Law 107-40 ("Authorization of Military Force in Afghanistan"), calling on the President to take all "necessary and appropriate force". The attacks (and you can say what you want about how they are carried out, but I think the rationale behind them is not up for dispute) are in accordance with the rule of law and exemplify the changing nature of warfare and its asymmetrical nature.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GPODT)
    Didn't Massoud advocate an Islamic state? If no, can you provide me with a source..
    Well, Islamic to the same degree that the UK is Christian, at least that's my interpretation. I do suppose to call it secular though would be technically incorrect. He certainly wasn't pushing for Sharia law though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GPODT)
    Didn't Massoud advocate an Islamic state? If no, can you provide me with a source..
    Islamic state. Ulema council et al. That's what rural afghans like and that's why they fought in the mujahideen.

    the last secular Afghanistan was najibullah's communist regime.

    When are we getting back to drone strikes being evil? I want a good laugh at people showing their ignorance supporting that statement
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    They do not need access to judicial process. They are considered enemy combatants of the USA as members of organisations that Congress has officially declared war on. The Constitution permits the Commander-in-Chief to authorise the killing of enemies during a war. Just because they are US citizens does not exempt them from this (in the same way that British citizens in Northern Ireland working for the IRA were considered enemy combatants). Congress authorised the war with al-Qaeda in Public Law 107-40 ("Authorization of Military Force in Afghanistan"), calling on the President to take all "necessary and appropriate force". The attacks (and you can say what you want about how they are carried out, but I think the rationale behind them is not up for dispute) are in accordance with the rule of law and exemplify the changing nature of warfare and its asymmetrical nature.
    Excellent post. The asymmetrical conduct of warfare and the blurred distinction of combatant and non-combatant in this discussion has been severely overlooked.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    They are perfectly extra-judicial; these people had no access to judicial process, their death warrants were signed personally by Obama, and the evidence that they were 'enemy combatants' has often been poor, and much of it kept secret. What we do know is that this evidence has often been so misguided that entire groups of people have been attacked because congregating together is suspicious. The legality of the US' use of drones is currently under investigation by the UN, but meanwhile the death toll of known innocents continues to rise as the US makes clear its disregard for human rights.
    Regardless of how clear the guilt of some people seems to be, it's never right for one person to be judge jury and executioner. If Obama can sign the death warrant of anyone by declaring them an enemy combatant, what happens when all the people who oppose him conveniently get deemed "enemy combatants"?

    We presume people to be innocent until the judicial process rules otherwise. That means a judge, a jury, the defendent getting legal advice and defence, the evidence being presented fully, and the jury judging the defendent on the evidence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bart1331)
    Regardless of how clear the guilt of some people seems to be, it's never right for one person to be judge jury and executioner. If Obama can sign the death warrant of anyone by declaring them an enemy combatant, what happens when all the people who oppose him conveniently get deemed "enemy combatants"?

    We presume people to be innocent until the judicial process rules otherwise. That means a judge, a jury, the defendent getting legal advice and defence, the evidence being presented fully, and the jury judging the defendent on the evidence.
    The whole concept of assassination by Presidential diktat in this way is a gross return to the sort of imperial military dictatorships that ruled in past centuries - it was Roman emperors and the likes of Jo Stalin who worked their way through kill lists. I don't dispute that the US believes itself to be at war and that the terrorists they are engaged with are less than interested themselves in the rules of the Geneva Convention, but shouldn't a modern superpower (especially one that lectures the rest of the world on democracy and civilised values and holds itself up to be a moral beacon) follow a higher standard?

    It's as if Captain Picard arrived at an alien planet and then just started zapping Klingons at random, just because he had decided they are likely to do some nasties, or because the Federation 'told him they were legitimate targets'. (Apologies to Trekkies if my metaphor is hopelessly muddled.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VeniViciVidi)
    Excellent post. The asymmetrical conduct of warfare and the blurred distinction of combatant and non-combatant in this discussion has been severely overlooked.
    It's precisely the 'asymmetry' of it that calls into question the whole nature of the US/Nato actions. These are, in the final analysis, lightly armed peasant warriors (albeit smart ones who have a high degree of war experience and cunning, as far as we can tell from their actions) who are fighting against the most overwhelmingly heavily armed power in the history of the world. Can it really be justifiable against that background to work through death lists from a comfortable HQ in the US, killing them impersonally like video targets, and causing huge additional civilian terror and large numbers of casualties?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's precisely the 'asymmetry' of it that calls into question the whole nature of the US/Nato actions. These are, in the final analysis, lightly armed peasant warriors (albeit smart ones who have a high degree of war experience and cunning, as far as we can tell from their actions) who are fighting against the most overwhelmingly heavily armed power in the history of the world. Can it really be justifiable against that background to work through death lists from a comfortable HQ in the US, killing them impersonally like video targets, and causing huge additional civilian terror and large numbers of casualties?
    So its not really about the killing, its just about making it fair? What exactly is the difference between killing someone from a base in the US electronically or sending a SEAL team to do the job for you on the ground? If you are Obama very little. Much the same as for whether US citizens die at the hands of the USSR or lightly armed peasant warrior on United 93. If you are the person dying the end result is the same.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doggyfizzel)
    So its not really about the killing, its just about making it fair? What exactly is the difference between killing someone from a base in the US electronically or sending a SEAL team to do the job for you on the ground? If you are Obama very little. Much the same as for whether US citizens die at the hands of the USSR or lightly armed peasant warrior on United 93. If you are the person dying the end result is the same.
    It's a complex of issues. The policy of assassinations in civilian areas with a high risk of civilian casualties is being conducted in an atmosphere where it can be sold as zero-risk to US personnel, therefore making it easier to accept at home, despite the fact that it is an abhorrent piece of imperialistic arrogance. It might be better to abandon the war altogether, since it is already clear that the US has no intention of remaining and equally clear that it hasn't worked in the long-run and will quickly or steadily collapse when Nato leaves. I don't find the war as a whole acceptable and it certainly isn't going on for the reasons we have been told. The constant murder of civilians against a backdrop of 'no-risk' to the personnel carrying them out is deeply wrong politically and morally - the former because it induces revenge hysteria and the latter because it is a gross piece of cowardly murderous behaviour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's a complex of issues. The policy of assassinations in civilian areas with a high risk of civilian casualties is being conducted in an atmosphere where it can be sold as zero-risk to US personnel, therefore making it easier to accept at home, despite the fact that it is an abhorrent piece of imperialistic arrogance. It might be better to abandon the war altogether, since it is already clear that the US has no intention of remaining and equally clear that it hasn't worked in the long-run and will quickly or steadily collapse when Nato leaves. I don't find the war as a whole acceptable and it certainly isn't going on for the reasons we have been told. The constant murder of civilians against a backdrop of 'no-risk' to the personnel carrying them out is deeply wrong politically and morally - the former because it induces revenge hysteria and the latter because it is a gross piece of cowardly murderous behaviour.
    As I stated and you ignored, as you have multiple times in this thread, its not a hard to sell. These groups are targeting US civilians, and US civilians matter more than Pakistani ones. It may not stand up to reason but that is how it is in reality. As for the second part I have lost you, the drone strikes are in Pakistan and Yemen for the most part, the war is in Afghanistan, and in no way could be classed as low risk to US personnel. Unless you are referring to the general war on terror. The war in terror was very high risk very boots on the ground, and look at the results in terms of dismantling Al-Qaeda, then compare it to the drone program, its clear which one is going to be the preferred option. The cheaper, easier to sell, effective one.

    You can use terms like cowardly but the guy giving the orders the guy signing the papers doesn't get his hands dirty either way. Whether its a drone or guy in budgie smugglers with a knife, Obama and his team are still in Washington.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You used the word bully
    Okay, maybe my semantics could've been better but, when has US given gotten on its knees?
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
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.