General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A Note On 'Drone Strikes', Ladies And Gentlemen [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Drones are used in areas in which we have not identified either by action or by other means, a war zone. That is part of the problem with zones.
Drones used for non-violent purposes are annoying enough. Drones that come out of nowhere and mistakenly hit guests at a wedding? What is that about? That's the kind of conduct we call terrorism. Just coming out of nowhere to kill people or threaten people without talking first, without diplomacy, without any procedure for declaring war or giving notice. That's barbaric. That's what it is.
So you are out with your buddies hunting and fooling around with your guns, and some neighbor who doesn't know you reports that you are acting like terrorists. Do you want a drone to come flying into your outing?
No way. Remember, if "do unto others what you would have them do unto you" doesn't work for you then try "what you do unto others, others are likely to do unto you." Maybe it's a little easier to understand.
And if you are uncomfortable with the Golden Rule because you associate it with Christianity, try the Categorical Imperative of Kant:
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
The way that the Obama administration is administering drone strikes does not comply with the Golden Rule or the categorical imperative.
Everyone deserves to know the rules. And nobody knows the rules when it comes to drone strikes -- nobody but the President himself.