Conga3 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Conga, it must be nice to live in that bubble of yours where you trust your government to do the right thing. I don't. But that's just me. ..in the context of this discussion, yes I do have more trust than not in the military arm of the United States to do the right thing. It's war, mistakes are made. But for the most part we can rest assured at night that when a US soldier pulls the trigger, an incredible amount of training to prevent mistakes and set of rules for engagement strike the optimal balance between our soldiers safety and the safety of non-combatants. I think it's a bit silly to read into something like this and think this is the first step towards the government drone bombing regular citizens in America - or whatever wild conclusions your minds allow you to wander. My bubble is nice. Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 So an 'American citizen' ... ...who travels abroad ...to take up arms against the US ...and becomes a "senior operational leader" of an organization that seeks to kill other Americans Deserves "due process of law" afforded to American citizens? In the bold you'll find your answer. Criminals are just as entitled to their Constitutional rights as anyone else. (Sort of similar to how even those Westboro idiots have freedom of speech.) Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 6, 2013 Author Share Posted February 6, 2013 I don't much like the idea of a senior Taliban leader being protected by the US Constitution... ...cause that's what we're talking about. You're OK with Obama basically being able to unilaterally decide to kill citizens of the United States? I'm quite serious when I say that I'm baffled that the Obama=tyranny crowd seems OK with this. Universal healthcare=tyranny. Magazine caps=fascism. Killing US citizens without due process? No problems there. (Again, I agree that as far as I know every single American killed by drones was probably an enemy of the US. I'm still not willing to give our government that sort of authority unless done in compliance with the Constitution. Small government conservatives should be absolutely enraged by this.) Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I'm not ok with the lack of command and control that Obama is displaying with the use of drones, but if there is a legit threat, that is verified through good intel, then I'm not as opposed. Now it seems like it's all about pre-emptive strikes, to hit them before they can solidfy their plans, and hit us. But this is where good decision making comes in. Link to comment
Conga3 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I don't much like the idea of a senior Taliban leader being protected by the US Constitution... ...cause that's what we're talking about. You're OK with Obama basically being able to unilaterally decide to kill citizens of the United States? I'm quite serious when I say that I'm baffled that the Obama=tyranny crowd seems OK with this. Universal healthcare=tyranny. Magazine caps=fascism. Killing US citizens without due process? No problems there. (Again, I agree that as far as I know every single American killed by drones was probably an enemy of the US. I'm still not willing to give our government that sort of authority unless done in compliance with the Constitution. Small government conservatives should be absolutely enraged by this.) See my previous post. I don't believe they can be considered a US Citizen once they receive their stripes in the Taliban. At that point, it's reasonable to assume they've renounced their citizenship - but just haven't gotten around to filing the right paperwork with the State department. If you want to twist my words like that to make your point sound more dramatic, well... Link to comment
The Dude Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I don't much like the idea of a senior Taliban leader being protected by the US Constitution... ...cause that's what we're talking about. You're OK with Obama basically being able to unilaterally decide to kill citizens of the United States? I'm quite serious when I say that I'm baffled that the Obama=tyranny crowd seems OK with this. Universal healthcare=tyranny. Magazine caps=fascism. Killing US citizens without due process? No problems there. (Again, I agree that as far as I know every single American killed by drones was probably an enemy of the US. I'm still not willing to give our government that sort of authority unless done in compliance with the Constitution. Small government conservatives should be absolutely enraged by this.) See my previous post. I don't believe they can be considered a US Citizen once they receive their stripes in the Taliban. At that point, it's reasonable to assume they've renounced their citizenship - but just haven't gotten around to filing the right paperwork with the State department. If you want to twist my words like that to make your point sound more dramatic, well... They're still U.S. citizens, whether you believe it or not. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm not ok with the lack of command and control that Obama is displaying with the use of drones, How much command and control is he displaying? What would be the appropriate amount? Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm not ok with the lack of command and control that Obama is displaying with the use of drones, How much command and control is he displaying? What would be the appropriate amount? How about having some sort of protocol, even if it's something as simple as a list of requirements that would deem it a threat. Also, improve intel gathering in the field, because how clear of a picture are you going to be able to get from satellites and drones. There are several things that could be done to improve this situation... Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm not ok with the lack of command and control that Obama is displaying with the use of drones, How much command and control is he displaying? What would be the appropriate amount? How about having some sort of protocol, even if it's something as simple as a list of requirements that would deem it a threat. Also, improve intel gathering in the field, because how clear of a picture are you going to be able to get from satellites and drones. There are several things that could be done to improve this situation... You're not privy to any of that information, so you wouldn't know if they have it or not, right? Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm not ok with the lack of command and control that Obama is displaying with the use of drones, How much command and control is he displaying? What would be the appropriate amount? How about having some sort of protocol, even if it's something as simple as a list of requirements that would deem it a threat. Also, improve intel gathering in the field, because how clear of a picture are you going to be able to get from satellites and drones. There are several things that could be done to improve this situation... You're not privy to any of that information, so you wouldn't know if they have it or not, right? No, i'm not, but do you think the "boots on the ground" intel would be better than what would be generated by ELINT? Link to comment
tschu Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I can't wait until Obama kills me with a drone. THX OBAMA Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm not ok with the lack of command and control that Obama is displaying with the use of drones, How much command and control is he displaying? What would be the appropriate amount? How about having some sort of protocol, even if it's something as simple as a list of requirements that would deem it a threat. Also, improve intel gathering in the field, because how clear of a picture are you going to be able to get from satellites and drones. There are several things that could be done to improve this situation... You're not privy to any of that information, so you wouldn't know if they have it or not, right? No, i'm not, but do you think the "boots on the ground" intel would be better than what would be generated by ELINT? Depends. Boots on the ground means putting real live soldiers in harm's way, which is the whole point of the drones. The tradeoff is that some mistakes can be made - but mistakes are made with boots on the ground, and have been for centuries. If we can get the bad guy without putting our guys in harm's way, that's a better thing, right? Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I can't wait until Obama kills me with a drone. THX OBAMA I am against being killed by a drone. If it was on a ballot, I'd vote no. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Depends. Boots on the ground means putting real live soldiers in harm's way, which is the whole point of the drones. The tradeoff is that some mistakes can be made - but mistakes are made with boots on the ground, and have been for centuries. If we can get the bad guy without putting our guys in harm's way, that's a better thing, right? I know, and thats the bitch of it... But the drones ability only go so far, which sucks, because I would much rather lose a drone than a soldier. And the "trade off" is spot on. Mistakes will be made, but that's why I think there needs to be a protocol based on past situations so that there's something to fall back on in case situations like this arise again. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I'm sure some sort of protocol exists. I highly doubt our military just up and decided to throw out decades' worth of hard-earned rules of engagement because we have a new toy. Granted, it's a new toy in a new theater in a new kind of conflict in a new information age, but there are still age-old things that apply. Link to comment
Recommended Posts