General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Respect the Anti-Drone Position, but I am Still Very Ambivalent
I do think that drone strikes are morally wrong and unconstitutional. However, when it comes to foreign and domestic policies, the U.S. has had a very long history of engaging in morally wrong and unconstitutional activities. These things are never a clear cut question of right and wrong.
What would be the alternative policy to drone strikes? Infiltrate nations, launch raids by special forces, and extract suspected targets for trial in the U.S.? That too carries moral and constitutional conflicts, and it would also involve the loss of life. Was the raid on OBL's compound in Pakistan constitutional and morally correct? Sure, no drones were used, but we still violated international laws, constitutional and territory rights and innocent people were killed.
Send in troops to occupy nations? Would that be better?
Negotiate with foreign nations to hand over suspected terrorist leaders and their cells for prosecution in the U.S. And if they say no? What then? What's the alternative?
Some will respond, "well if the U.S. would stop killing them, they would not kill us." But that position presumes that terrorist organizations only bomb the U.S. What about the 2002 attack in Bali? What did Indonesia do to warrant such an attack?
I just don't know of a purely moral and by the book constitutional way to deal with a roving band of terrorists who move from nation to nation and are organized with the sole purpose of bringing death and destruction to civilzation all in the name of their religion.
Yes, I have problems with the drone strikes, but I don't have a better alternative. I don't like giving our president the right to target and kill Americans abroad, but I also don't want American citizens to use the constitution as a shield for engaging in acts of terrorism.
End Notes:
Bali 2002 attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)Have some qualms about it but don't see a lot of alternatives either to get some of these guys. 
I would think that knowing that they could have a missle dropped on their would have a psychologically damaging effect on would-be terrorists at some point
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Makes me so nostalgic for the music of the Bush years.
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)Were they 'conflicted' when it was Bush? Did they populate discussion forums with posts analyzing their moral dilemmas?
LOL
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)EastKYLiberal
(429 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:19 AM - Edit history (1)
for the the gov't to go after terrorists, even if they limited civil rights.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x582516#582750
Surprise, surprise.
think
(11,641 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)is limited to which team is good and which one is bad, things get a little screwy.
A distinguishing feature of the mass public is the limited comprehension of democracy,
along with its attendant logical inconsistencies, and the ease to which one may be susceptible to
its manipulation by elites (Selznick, 1951). “The readiness for manipulation by symbols,
especially those permitting sado-masochistic releases, is characteristic of the mass as a crowd (p.
324). In its defense of democracy, the mass public may take action against its enemies which are
a contrary to the democratic principles they are defending. The mass public will dismiss proper
social conduct and established channels of action and resort to the most immediate forms of
response (including force) to gain immediate relief from intolerable situations.
Selznick, P. (1951, January). Institutional vulnerability in mass society. American Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 320-331.
That's from my thesis on the Japanese internment.
Yavin4
(35,441 posts)acts of terror? How do you prevent groups from recruiting, training, plotting, and carrying out random acts of violence against civilian populations?
Most anti-terrorists methods is going to involve some violation of international laws and civil liberties.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)instead of using Hellfire missiles as a solution. But that's hard, and it might affect the profits of oil/telecomm/defense companies.
Do you consider drone strikes to be acts of terror? People in Pakistan do.
Yavin4
(35,441 posts)What did the people of Bali do to warrant such an attack?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Terrorists undoubtedly act from complex motives. Although rigid classification of their motivation must be therefore somewhat artificial, it is nevertheless useful for analytical purposes to identify four basic cat- egories: (1) common criminals motivated by personal gain; (2) persons acting as a consequence of a psychopathological condition; (3) persons seeking to publicize a claim or redress an individual grievance; and (4) ideologically motivated individuals.36
The last category more than the others seems to fascinate writers, terrify the public, and intrigue the media.37 Seeking to confer upon themselves a special status by virtue of their purported adherence to higher political or ideological values, these actors, however, engage in no more than common crimes seldom justified by the ordinary principles of criminal responsibility.38 The ideologically motivated offender seeks to accomplish an ideological or political objective by means which are un- lawful, presumably because no other effective legal means are available to accomplish his goal.39 That proposition has become the cornerstone of an entire rationalization process for the use of violence. The contem- porary ideologically motivated offender frequently claims to be acting in self-defense, by reason of necessity, or under compulsion. In some in- stances the perpetrator claims to be the victim of a system which left him no viable alternative.
~snip~
Ideologically motivated actors frequently perceive themselves as "justice-makers." They consider their action, even when abhorrent to them, to be dictated by circumstances beyond their control or condi- tioned by the limitations imposed upon them by virtue of their inherent political weakness. The gradual transformation which such individualsundergo before resorting to forms of terror-violence evidences that be- lief. Within this category of ideologically-motivated actors the process appears almost always the same:
1. heightened perception of oppressive conditions-whether real or imag- inary;
2. recognition that such conditions are not the immutable order of things, but amenable to active reform;
3. that action designed to promote change is not forthcoming;
4. that one must at last resort to violence;
5. that such action need not be successful, but only contribute to setting in motion a series of events enlisting others and leading to change (a realization that dissemination of the cause is more important than suc- cess of the action);
6. that the individual's self-sacrifice outweighs the guilt borne by com- mitting a violent act (thus violence without guilt);
7. that the cause transcends the need to rationalize the act of violence (the self-gratification merges with the higher purpose). This transformation of consciousness is accompanied by two additional conditions:
8. the ethnocentricity of the values opposed to the desired change justifies the same arrogant ethnocentricity of values of the actor (thus polariza- tion of values without a mechanism for reconciliation by virtue of evo- lutionary and participatory social change leads to violence); 9. the absence of resocialization of actors who do not conform to social norms stigmatizes them and prevents reintegration into society, which further radicalizes them and leads to increased violence.
Bassiouni, M. (1981). Terrorism, law enforcement, and the mass media: Perspectives, problems, proposals. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 72(1), p. 8-10.
Yavin4
(35,441 posts)You don't have an answer as to what Bali citizens did to warrant a bombing against them.
Got it.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)But I'm not the one advocating the use of drones for assassination to answer the question.
sadalien
(62 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)But BEFORE the fact? Hmmmmm........
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Yavin4
(35,441 posts)What would you employ to stop these acts from happening?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Yavin4
(35,441 posts)Do you think that that would be sufficient to protect civilization?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)leftstreet
(36,109 posts)you'd think
Yavin4
(35,441 posts)That's much easier than it is to reasonably engage in a discussion.
leftstreet
(36,109 posts)in terms of diplomacy and turning the corner on warmonger mentality
He's a wimpy corporate CEO. Period.
If that sounds like an 'attack' so be it
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Some of those terrorist organizations attack their own countries and we are there at the behest of their government to stop them.
I agree it's a more complex issue than some want to portray it as.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Drone strikes are just another means to an end in war-- although it doesn't necessarily have to end there, but that's a whole other layer of discussion. But my outrage over the Obama administration's position isn't about drones per se, it's about their assertion that the administration is empowered to kill anyone it deems worthy of killing-- there are standards, but THEY set the standards, so that's effectively "we can kill whomever we want"-- without need to consult the courts or anyone else, in secret if it desires.
That assertion eliminates the protection from arbitrary government harm that was the hallmark of U.S. constitutional government. It doesn't matter whether they kill with drones or with Seal Teams-- it's extrajudicial assassination, devoid of constitutional protection. To even assert such authority is a war crime, IMO. Using it is an atrocity.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)eom
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)...that the administration wants to kill. Judge, jury, and executioner. I'm appalled that any Americans so willingly dispose of the constitutional protections that stood between them and arbitrary and capricious harm by their own government.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)against people for political purposes or something like that. You are worried something like that is going to happen.
OK, the memo is sufficiently vague so that if someone wanted to be afraid of something like that, they would find reason.
Its not going to happen. I travel overseas a fair amount, I will probably be very vocally against any future Republican administration that might be elected, and I have zero fear that one of them will drone strike me.
Marr
(20,317 posts)deceit of a type one can usually only find at Sean Hannity's site.
The definition is extremely broad, and is not focused on Americans actively aiding the enemy in a combat zone. It justifies the targeted killing of Americans whom the US Government says are associated with Al Qaeda, whether they are engaged in any hostile activity or not. And there is no review or oversight on that decision whatsoever.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Rotate your eyeballs about two degrees up and read your post.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)That fixes everything! George W. Bush was right all along.
I am so dumb.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)means that President Obama is making everyone an enemy combatant!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Straw man. The issue is the ability to abuse power, not whether any particular person will do it at any particular time.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Then you fall back on the suggestion that a future President will use drone strikes willy-nilly because they can. As if the American people would sit still for it.
OK, the language could be tighter, but this is never going to happen.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)And who said it had to be willy-nilly?
And, yes, the American people sit still for all kinds of shit. The torture and rendition did come to light and get stopped for the most part after a while, but that didn't do much for the people whose rights were abused. And the torturers have NOT been held accountable.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)because the lack of check and balance/stripping of due process is inherent.
randome
(34,845 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)The Obama administration has preemptively asserted that it is not accountable for extrajudicial assassination, even of U.S. citizens. That effectively removes ALL constitutional protection from government harm, no matter how capricious-- the Obama administration even asserts that it's actions in that regard are beyond questioning. That slope is frictionless.
randome
(34,845 posts)But when I think it through, it seems that the possibility of revealing our intelligence sources could come into play and it is not a given that that's a good thing.
For the most part, I'm willing to trust the military with military matters.
And what kind of review would you suggest?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)...it's not easy to separate matters as cleanly as we would like. Some of these terrorist groups want to set up Islamic dictatorships in their governments and we are helping to prevent that.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who kill women who 'bring dishonor' by allowing themselves to be raped.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Somehow, I doubt it.
And by the way, the memo in question isn't focused on wanted criminals, or people fighting for an enemy army in a combat zone. It's extremely broad, and justifies the targeted killing of Americans who might, perhaps, maybe if the conditions are right, be a problem some day. And if that doesn't bother you, it's done by executive fiat, removed from all public review.
There is no legal excuse for it. There is no moral defense for it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Response to stevenleser (Reply #20)
Marr This message was self-deleted by its author.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Yavin4
(35,441 posts)If Bush used drones against Americans involved with terrorist groups plotting attacks against civilian populations, I would not have had a problem with it.
I was against Bush using 9/11 as a reason to launch an invasion of Iraq, torture, and scaring the American people into voting for him.
You would've ambivalently supported the Bush Administration in targeted killings of Americans that they claimed, without any review, had associations with Al Qaeda, even if they weren't in a combat zone, weren't engaged in any sort of hostile activity, and there was no particular reason to believe they ever would be?
And you would've ambivalently supported these targeted killings by the Bush Administration, done by executive fiat, with no outside review of any sort?
Alright.
Yavin4
(35,441 posts)In fact, a lot of liberals at the time used Clinton's targeting of OBL as proof that Clinton did go after OBL when conservatives called him soft.
Marr
(20,317 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Aren't you the guy who claims he didn't say a thing that's in the title of a post two slots up? Is this your whole debate strategy? Just ask for things to be repeated? I have to say, it seems a bit stupid in a written format, where you could just glance up.
Anyway, here's the difference:
One is the targeted killing of American citizens, not in a combat zone, not engaged in any hostile activity, purely on the order of the Executive Branch, with no review of any sort.
The other was a man wanted for direct involvement in a whole string of devastating terrorist attacks by multiple US and foreign agencies and for whom capture was extremely risky or outright unfeasible.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
ecstatic
(32,711 posts)Ideally, nations would work things out without ever getting to the point of war.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)proclaiming: Bring me your tired...blah blah blah...It is wrong when We have a right a GODDAMN right to a fair trial by JURY before we are placed in prison or, slentenced to death.
The system is badly flawed, but at least we do have to do that dance.
The expansion of Bush's drone policy to include a simple suspicion that an American citizen overseas who is a terrorist sympathizer can be deemed worthy of assasination by drone IF, and only IF he/she might be party to an imminent attack.
But the Administration places no burden of proof of an imminent attack OR proof of the suspected sympathiers guilt. We just get to kill the person without burden of arrest, trial or verdict.
That is just plain WRONG. Whether you are George Bush, Barack Obama, Democrat, Republican or whatever.
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)One difficulty presents itself to my eye in re drone strikes. Stipulating the "target" as an enemy combatant who may be reasonably treated with all the force our country can bring to bear, these combatants are embedded in localities under the administration of states with which we are not, in any sense, at war. Yet such strikes almost invariably kill citizens of those states in addition to the target, citizens to whom it is not always easy to attach a belligerent status. This is not comparable, say, to the strategic bombing of a city in a country with which we are at war, in which civilians might also be slain. Search my brain as I will, I can see no justification for killing the citizens of another country who have offered no insult towards myself or my country.
On edit -- posted in wrong thread, but it will fit here, too.
-- Mal
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)Do think all German citizens in Dresden and Berlin we're Nazi sympathizers when FDR was having those cities flattened?
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)We were at war with Germany. The difficulty here is that, in a war against another nation (and in the case of WWII, a war in which we engaged in full accordance with the Constitution), the entire people may be construed as the Enemy. The justification for strategic bombing against civilians (feeble as it might be -- no argument there) is that the purpose of same is to break the will of the people to continue the war (regardless of the fact that there is little, if any, evidence to support that such bombing has the intended effect). In the case of US strategic bombing in WWII, for the most part we used the fiction that we were actually bombing strategic resources (ball bearings, synthetic oil plants, what have you), and that the civilian casualties were just regrettable collateral damage. The British were much more open about it. By late in the war, however, we discarded even that rationale, and just out-and-out decided to blow away civilians. Dresden and Tokyo (and other cities; nevermind Hiroshima and Nagasaki) are not comparable to, say, Yemen and Pakistan, because in the latter case we have no intention of breaking the will of, or concluding a war against Yemen and Pakistan -- we are not at war with them!
-- Mal
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)it's not right to have this power vest in one person. There needs be an independent check. The question is who should do that check? and how do make that check is done in a timely fashion?.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)If they are morally and legally wrong in your opinion, you should be done with them.
Yavin4
(35,441 posts)Some of the things that Lincoln did to the South during the Civil War was also morally wrong and unconstitutional, but I still supported him.
Response to Yavin4 (Original post)
Yavin4 This message was self-deleted by its author.
donheld
(21,311 posts)You posted the thoughts I've had running around my brain unable to put into words.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)meaning it is "legal" by their definition within the US. It's been posted in GD; I don't have more information.
