76% of Iowans Favor Requiring Warrants for Drone Surveillance

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Too many drones are not good. We don't like speed traps either. So, limit drones to polling places, US borders, and low information voters.

Edited March 16, 2014 by ExExpat

[deleted-05292014 331]

Warfare is evolving, that is true. My problem isn't the technology, it's how people choose to use it.

I don't know about Cambodia, but the civilian casualties caused by the Allies in WWII were in no way accidental. When the RAF fire-bombed Hamburg, the civilians were the target. Same with Berlin. The other difference is that this was not a "safe" method of waging war. Far from it. The bomber crews suffered horrific attrition rates. RAF Bomber Command suffered over 55,000 fatalities overall, so the cost in lives was substantial.

With the current drone campaign, we are breaching sovereign airspace, the collateral damage is often innocent and the only risk we run is losing a materiel asset. Not having to put a life on the line just makes it more likely that we pull the trigger.

But we are not at war. We have no moral right to kill innocent civilians in order to prevent a suicide bomber doing the same. Are our innocent civilians' lives worth more than another nations'?

And what about the sniper on the roof? What if the building occupants are unaware he is using their building as a firing platform? Do we still have the right to kill them?

Is the life of one Marine worth more than the life of an innocent Yemeni youth?

I would rather trust a Marine to carry out a mission without causing innocent bystander casualties, than a Hellfire fired from a drone. I'd just prefer he didn't have to.

We are at war though - at least until the end of this year. This will mark our 11th year in Afghanistan - You going to tell me some guy returning not having a leg that we aren't at war? I'd love to be there for that conversation. As a US citizen I believe my government has not only a moral right to prevent a suicide bomber but an obligation to eliminate any and all threats that can pose an imminent danger. If there are innocent people nearby - that is very unfortunate.

We shouldn't be at war. We should have got out of Afghanistan after the initial defeat of the Taliban. President Bush and for all his we aren't going to be doing any nation building sure did flip flop. Now all are doing is creating another generation of jihadist - I understand that, but we should not take our eyes off of those who are plotting and planning the next 9/11. But lets not argue of those points, we are arguing the use of drones in warfare. I think the innocent casualties are still smaller than if we flew over and dropped a bunker buster or cluster bomb on a target. It's not perfect form of warfare but it is the most precise without putting our people in harms way.

And no I'm not going to answer your question as to whose life is worth more. I value the sanctity of all life, but especially most - MINE or my fellow country men/women.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We're at war in Afghanistan? When was the last time a nation has built hospitals, schools and roads while at war in the country that nation is at war with? But fine, let's just say for a moment that we're at war with Afghanistan even though we're really not. Then why are we drone-dropping bombs on Pakistan and Yemen and whatever other countries that we're most certainly not at war with?

[deleted-05292014 331]

We're at war in Afghanistan? When was the last time a nation has built hospitals, schools and roads while at war in the country that nation is at war with? But fine, let's just say for a moment that we're at war with Afghanistan even though we're really not. Then why are we drone-dropping bombs on Pakistan and Yemen and whatever other countries that we're most certainly not at war with?

We are not at war with Afghanistan we are in a war whose current theatre is in Afghanistan - we are fighting against the Taliban.

Like it or not Bush defined the theatre of war as being anywhere in the world. But we attack targets in other countries when those governments are either incapable of eliminating threats or in concert with those individuals or groups who are actively waging war against us. I suppose it's also the same reason why we sent troops into Laos or into Cambodia during the Vietnam War, the enemy seeks refuge in other countries.

What about this scenario.

A small terrorist cell is planning a massive attack on Western diplomatic targets and an American school in Yemen from a safehouse located in a sparsely populated farming village in the mountains. The US has real actionable intelligence from a Cia mole who has penetrated the group. The US govt cannot inform Yemeni officials bc they believe the conspirators will be tipped off and our intelligence apparatus may be comprised. Logistically it would be impossible for us to send in special forces due to lack of favorable ground conditions. The only option available is to send in a drone and attack the target and eliminate the threat. As POTUS do you make the call or not? Me? Hell yeah with a red, white, and blue middle finger painted on the missle

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We are not at war with Afghanistan we are in a war whose current theatre is in Afghanistan - we are fighting against the Taliban.

Like it or not Bush defined the theatre of war as being anywhere in the world. But we attack targets in other countries when those governments are either incapable of eliminating threats or in concert with those individuals or groups who are actively waging war against us. I suppose it's also the same reason why we sent troops into Laos or into Cambodia during the Vietnam War, the enemy seeks refuge in other countries.

What about this scenario.

A small terrorist cell is planning a massive attack on Western diplomatic targets and an American school in Yemen from a safehouse located in a sparsely populated farming village in the mountains. The US has real actionable intelligence from a Cia mole who has penetrated the group. The US govt cannot inform Yemeni officials bc they believe the conspirators will be tipped off and our intelligence apparatus may be comprised. Logistically it would be impossible for us to send in special forces due to lack of favorable ground conditions. The only option available is to send in a drone and attack the target and eliminate the threat. As POTUS do you make the call or not? Me? Hell yeah with a red, white, and blue middle finger painted on the missle

So it's just a matter of time until we drone-bomb London, Amsterdam, Paris and Hamburg? Is that what we're saying?

[deleted-05292014 331]

So it's just a matter of time until we drone-bomb London, Amsterdam, Paris and Hamburg? Is that what we're saying?

Of course not. Those countries are our allies. We wouldn't have a problem taking out threats in those countries or working with them cooperatively to do so.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Of course not. Those countries are our allies. We wouldn't have a problem taking out threats in those countries or working with them cooperatively to do so.

So you're effectively saying that we declared war on and are in fact at war with the entire world except for those nations that we consider our allies? Surely, you can't be serious.

[deleted-05292014 331]

So you're effectively saying that we declared war on and are in fact at war with the entire world except for those nations that we consider our allies? Surely, you can't be serious.

No what I am saying we have a right to defend our nation anywhere in the world where there is an imminent threat to our security.

This is not my idea. This is reality. This doctrine or rules of engagement was put into play by the Bush administration and to my knowledge upheld by the current administration. This is not unique. Reagan bombed Libya and killed Khadaffi kid. Clinton lobbed cruise missiles into (I forget Afghanistan maybe) to take out Osama.

Drones are just more efficient.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No what I am saying we have a right to defend our nation anywhere in the world where there is an imminent threat to our security.

This is not my idea. This is reality. This doctrine or rules of engagement was put into play by the Bush administration and to my knowledge upheld by the current administration. This is not unique. Reagan bombed Libya and killed Khadaffi kid. Clinton lobbed cruise missiles into (I forget Afghanistan maybe) to take out Osama.

Drones are just more efficient.

The fact is that we don't actually have such a right. We do this and have done this for much too long and all we have and will reap is terrorism. It's not a question of whether we'll be attacked again but a question of when and where. Every load dropped by a drone creates more fighters against us than it can possibly take out. It's a stupid and useless strategy. It works well for the MIC, though.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[deleted-05292014 331]

The fact is that we don't actually have such a right. We do this and have done this for much too long and all we have and will reap is terrorism. It's not a question of whether we'll be attacked again but a question of when and where. Every load dropped by a drone creates more fighters against us than it can possibly take out. It's a stupid and useless strategy. It works well for the MIC, though.

We do have a right - it is legal under international law and under United Nations. Please see the following exerpt:

First, in order to target the state, the wrongful acts of the non-state actors must be “attributable” to the state. Although a majority of the acts of the non-state actors in Pakistan are attributable to state organs, the U.S. isn’t targeting the state and is only surgically targeting militant hideouts, barring occasional unintended and misdirected strikes.

Second, in targeting the militants, the United States doesn’t violate Pakistan’s sovereignty because there’s an exception available to the state’s right of territorial sovereignty under customary international law. UNGA resolution 2625 clearly establishes state responsibility to refrain from supporting acts of terrorism, failing which the injured state(s) can exercise the right of self-defense to protect their interests and citizens, which is also specified by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

Third, Article 51 provides that the case for targeting non-state actors rests on compliance with the requirements of necessity and proportionality. In Pakistan’s case, U.S. actions in the form of drone attacks are in compliance with necessity (since political and diplomatic options have been exhausted in convincing the Pakistani state to rein in these groups), and proportionality (strikes are targeted at the militant hideouts in a localized area and not at government troops or installations).

And, fourth, the ICJ ruling implies that Pakistan, the host state for non-state actors, can’t escape responsibility over the acts of NSAs, whether they are committed with or without its knowledge, and that it must do everything in its capacity to rein in these groups. The mere denial of state involvement isn’t sufficient. Thus, drone strikes constitute an effective and lawful response if they are carried out within the bounds of the above provisions. http://thediplomat.com/2012/04/are-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-legal/

UN Charter: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

UN Resolution: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/25/ares25.htm

Yeah i agree that waging long wars and even drone attacks creates resentment and I am sure is used as a recruitment tool but I think it is an effective way to take out terror groups top echelon. This administration has decimated Al Qaeda leadership - you may disagree with the method but that is a fact. Obama has been as hawkish as any other leader in his position would be, because it is his job to protect our nation. Of course terrorist groups are still planning attacks and maybe they will get lucky but the days of these guys sitting in plain view making videos and open training camps is over.

So in my scenario, which is a very real scenario, and similar scenarios have been used to justify drone attacks - what would you do? I mean terrorists don't adhere to international laws. Terrorists goal is to attack civilians. We do not intentionally target civilians with our drones. There are checks and balances in place before a drone attack is carried out to prevent abuse.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one Big Dog Unlike other people on this forum, I do respect your opinion.