I have no problem with their use against terrorists, either foreign or domestic. Their use helps keeps for the most part American GI's out of harms way. Although there are times I wonder if the U.S. wouldn't benefit more if some of these targeted terrorist were captured for the intel they could provide. Risk and reward should be used to decide whether to go after the terrorist with a drone or to attempt to capture them.
I didn't address the "domestic" issue and probably should have. The definition of a domestic terrorist can be pretty elusive and the potential for abuse/misuse by the political element is a complicated issue. The Gov't can usually manage to turn any issue "FUBAR." For that reason, I am opposed to domestic drones.
And who gets to decide who's a terrorist and who isn't? The CIA? The President? So they have "intel" from a "reliable source" that Akhmed McTerrorist is on Mohammed Lane. That means they should be able to destroy Mohammed Lane?Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.
Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.
Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.
I question under what circumstances a drone used against us by our own government would EVER be acceptable!Yes as long as it is not used domestically.
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.
Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.
I question under what circumstances a drone used against us by our own government would EVER be acceptable!
If another country used them against us, we would certainly retaliate! Perhaps if we quit meddling in other countries' affairs, we wouldn't have this problem, except for the occasional crackpot and his followers, who would certainly be dissuaded from ever doing it again.
We've been lucky, so far, but lately all I've been reading about is the increased likelihood of terrorist attacks on a major scale here in the US. Scary! :thumbdown
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.
Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.
Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.
And who gets to decide who's a terrorist and who isn't? The CIA? The President? So they have "intel" from a "reliable source" that Akhmed McTerrorist is on Mohammed Lane. That means they should be able to destroy Mohammed Lane?
The amount of collateral damage is ridiculous, and there is usually no other proof that someone is a terrorist other than a bureacrat said he was. I'm sorry, I can't stand behind executions with zero trials or where no evidence is presented.
I understand that, a drone's use on domestic soil would have to occur under the right circumstances. But I wouldn't rule it out just because it is domestic soil. We Americans are a finicky bunch when it comes to security. If we see something that is considered heavy handed, use of too much power, we get all over the police or in this case, probably the military and the president who authorized it. But if the terrorist happens to escape and blows something up, those same Americans would be hollering and jumping up and down demanding to know why more force wasn’t used.
If the Arabs are not killing each other fast enough, then the use of the drones is sorely needed. If they will cooperate with our policies and kill each other in great numbers and at higher rates of speed than usual, then the drones are a redundancy, but perhaps a needed one for the specific target that is stubbornly avoiding the crosshairs.
It seems a little odd that the Leftists who would shed crocodile tears for the imprisoned in Gitmo are silent on the execution absent due process for the assassinated Arabs and Islamists. Maybe only odd if one is to expect an even handed, apolitical approach to moral judgements.
There is a strange silence on the lack of due process and the incursion into sovereign states against whom we are not at war and against whom we impudently ply this crime.
You have no idea whether the amount of collateral damage is 'ridiculous' or not. If you want to take a look at 'ridiculous' collateral damage, look at any German or Japanese city after World War II. That's collateral damage.
Drones are being used frequently for assassinations , attacks, spying, etc. I'm really seeking opinions on the drones used for assassinations.
Personally, I approve of this method against proven "terrorists," and consider it poetic justice because of the nature of their work where they blend back into their normal society. The spy/attack drone can spot this behaviour and resolve the ambiguity with extreme prejudice. I'm OK with that and think it a clever solution to the difficulty of identifying terrorists. I'm trying to see if others agree with this position or even if I am missing some moral issue in the mental gymnastics.
If they're going to kill a guy, they're going to kill the guy. Doesn't matter if it's done by a missile from a robot, or a bullet from a sniper's rifle. Now if you want to talk about the ethics of assassination, that's an entirely different topic altogether.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?