A hypothetical question for anyone who supports the use of drones/summary executions

[Zalatix]

Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Let's say you have long supported the concept of summary executions without a trial, and one day the Government decides that you're a terrorist. Let's say it happened because you opposed a future Republican administration and are at least at the level of a community activist. Or hell, let's just assume that you were mistakenly identified. Some other idiot with your name has a stockpile of bombs ready to assassinate a Republican president and the wrong address (as in, YOURS) got put into the targeting database.

The drone strike is coming in 5 seconds and your family is with you. Then a miracle happens: you suddenly have a go-back-in-time button at your disposal. If you hit the button then some timefuckery happens and the drone goes away, and you and yours are saved, but in exchange a Constitutional amendment occurs to forbid summary executions.

Which choice do you make?

By the way, while time travel is hypothetical, but drones killing an innocent person by accident, along with their whole family, is NOT hypothetical. It is real. Irrefutable FACT: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=662605

Edit: This isn't a slam on President Obama. This is a slam against summary executions in general and drones in particular.

[msongs]

1. the current drone using crowd is NOT "a future Republican administration". so don't blame repubs nt

[Zalatix]

2. Republicans will use drones far more often though.

[Angry Dragon]

3. comparison of 3 years

Apr 14, 2012 ... In Bush's last three years in office, the U.S. launched 39 drone attacks in Pakistan . In Obama's first three years, that number jumped to 241.


http://www.progressive.org/drone_war_in_pakistan.html

[Zalatix]

4. You may see thousands of drone strikes during a GOP Administration.

The rise in drone strikes is not because President Obama is in office. It's because they're cheaper and the military simply has concocted more reasons to use them.

You don't honestly believe that when a Republican gets back into office that the use of drones will DECREASE, will you?

Edited to add: By the way, you never answered the question of the OP.

[Angry Dragon]

5. I do not support the use of drones/summary executions

so the question is moot for me

[Zalatix]

11. Well, hell, thumbs up! +100!

[bighart]

112. You may or may not be correct in your assessment, but the facts are what they are.

The exponential rise in drone murders has occurred in the last 3 years. That is an absolute fact.

[boppers]

6. Well, since summary executions via drones is bullshit, that hasn't happened, I'll play.

How many people in Cleveland have been killed?

Due to targeting errors, or whatever?

Maybe Detroit?

L.A.?

Oh, wait, it's only happened in war zones.

Places where people are dying, and will die, until fuckwads living there learn the concept of "peace with people you hate".

[Zalatix]

7. Not sure what you mean. Are you saying it's okay to do it in warzones

as long as it doesn't happen here?

[boppers]

8. We kill in warzones for absurd reasons.

Perhaps the concept of "war zone" is unclear to you?

When a nation, a people, a group, goes to war, they endanger *all* people in their groups.

When Cleveland decides to go to war with DC, I assume many people will be hurt. People who did not take up arms, but let their government do so.

[Zalatix]

9. Then perhaps "hell no!" is unclear to you.

NO use of drones or summary executions in foreign warzones.
NO use of drones or summary executions here.

Also - you can be targeted here, in America, if you are declared a terrorist by the Government.

If you have a problem with that, then we've got nothing else to say to each other. At this point it boils down to who's going to win at the ballot box.

[boppers]

12. Both parties in play favor summary executions.

Same as has been since the 1950's.

I vote based on *who* will make better decisions about who should be executed, since both parties will be doing executions.

[Fumesucker]

10. If we are at war with these nations then the USA is also a "warzone"..

Since it takes two sides to have a war..

[Zalatix]

13. LOL well said.

[boppers]

14. That's mighty binary of you.

What are the "two sides" in Reagan's drug war?
The "two sides" in the war on poverty?

War never has had two sides.

Ever.

I'm surprised people can still think in such shallow perspectives.

And yes, The US is part of it, I grew up in southern Arizona, with drones over my head. Perhaps you were insulated from the "drug war", I was not.

[Fumesucker]

15. My mistake, I thought you were talking about armed hostilities, not stupid rhetoric..

You grew up with drones over your head?

How old are you, twelve?

[boppers]

16. No, I'm 40.

Are you, perhaps, surprised when our latest tools of war become public?

Were you shocked to learn that all email, paper mail, wire transfers (etc.) since the 1950's have been monitored, if they left US boundaries?

The best tool in the US arsenal has been telling people that they were "free" from the surveillance state.

Free, that is, if they didn't mail, phone, email, post to websites, etc.

Getting back to drones, I had them overhead 24 years ago, when they were "so secret they didn't exist".

You see, "secret" weapons are like that.

[Fumesucker]

17. If they were so secret then how did you know about them?

Drones for the most part are undetectable from the ground by eye or by ear, one of the main reasons they are effective..

[boppers]

87. I've been in interesting places and held interesting jobs.

"Secret" doesn't mean "nobody knows", it means "those who know don't talk until it's public".

[Fumesucker]

89. ...

[boppers]

92. Indeed.

Likewise, on the internet, nobody knows who's NSA, FBI, or some geek making things up from their mom's basement.

Funny medium.

(My father was Air Force, I grew up with a lot of base folks, spent a huge chunk of my life near some interesting projects, and went into computer intelligence, and was privy to a lot of stuff that's still not public..... or I could be some kid sitting in a basement, pulling your leg).

[Fumesucker]

94. I don't doubt that there were experimental ultra top secret drones 25 years ago..

What I seriously doubt is that the Puzzle Palace or the Skunkworks or whoever would risk using them on drug interdiction.

The stealth helicopters they used for the bin Laden raid have more than likely been around for a while but they were only risked on a really high value target and the aftermath of that mission makes it clear why they were held back from more mundane tasks.

[boppers]

99. Ft. Huachucha was a proving ground for a lot of things.

Like much of technology, it is tested on simple tasks, before moving to more complex ones.

Same with DMAFB.

It is not being "risked", it is being "proven".

[Zalatix]

18. You know, it is kind of funny that you never answered the question in the OP

one has to wonder why you're doing all this dancing about.

[gratuitous]

25. Only in war zones?

Wow, I must have missed the declaration of war against Yemen. And Pakistan. And The Phillippines. You'd think something that important would have been in the papers or something. Maybe war zones are automatically created wherever one of our missiles happens to obliterate a bunch of people? That would be really convenient, and totally in keeping with our hallowed principles of necessity, distinction and proportionality. I'll grant you it's not quite as catchy as "separation of powers" or "due process," but this year's fashion is just so in! Everybody loves it.

[hack89]

35. You did miss it. The Authorization for Use of Military Force was passed Sept 18, 2001

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[gratuitous]

41. "Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution"

So, where are the findings that anyone summarily executed in Yemen, the Phillippines or Pakistan had anything to do with "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"? While Congress covered its pasty white fannies in section 2(b)(1), the administration hasn't been quite to assiduous. There are several consulting and reporting requirements under the War Powers Resolution, 50 USC § 1543, that weren't superseded by this unconstitutional exercise in abdication, and that haven't been met by this or the previous administration.

Looks pretty illegal, but as I said, since everybody seems to be enjoying it so much, what's the big schmeal? Just a bunch of us beady-eyed rule-of-law types who have this unnatural attachment to a quaint old document.

[hack89]

45. Beats me. Why don't you ask the President - he's a lawyer. nt

[gratuitous]

47. Victory is mine

Thanks for your validation.

[hack89]

48. Does that mean the drone attacks will stop now?

I am not saying the law is wise or good. It is simply the law. Apparently the President has no problem with it. Looks like your issue is with him, not me.

[gratuitous]

51. No, but they're still illegal

Not to mention immoral, counterproductive, and liable to bring about retribution that won't quite reach the elites responsible, but instead will be visited on the proles who can be retaliated against. But that doesn't seem to enter the calculations of the defenders of these atrocities, who are only too happy to shrug, Homer Simpson-ishly, and mutter, "Whaddyagunnado?" For now, it's just a bunch of nameless, faceless foreigners; when the atrocities hit closer to home (or right on top of it), be sure to say "They hate us for our freedoms!"

It's worked before.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. Those would be the House and Senate committees that are regularly briefed.

If those briefings are not occurring or bad intel is being disseminated one has to wonder why members within the House nand Senate are not clamouring for impeachment. Are they protecting Obama or have all 535 part of the grand conspiracy?

[whatchamacallit]

26. Well

Last edited Wed May 9, 2012, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Places where people are dying, and will die, until fuckwads living there learn the concept of "peace with people you hate"

Lol! So I guess killing them is the perfect way to teach "peace with people you hate".

Oh, wait, it's only happened in war zones.

Since we can deem *anywhere* to be a "war zone" that doesn't mean shit.

[sabrina 1]

27. No, it has not 'only happened in war zones'. Unless we have declared war on

Pakistan and Yemen. Have we?

A mother and five of her children were killed by drone last week in a country with which we are not at war. That country has repeatedly asked the US to keep their drones out of their sovereign nation.

I realize that a mother and her five children who are not American are of lesser value as human beings to some people in this country. But where I come from, that mother and her innocent children are of equal value to any mother in Cleveland or London, or Paris.

We apologized of course, oops, sorry we 'made a mistake'. Fifty years from now that mother's family will suffer the loss of their loved ones.

Let me ask you this, do you support what happened to that family? Do you support the US going into any country they feel like going into and killing innocent civilians? Do you believe that family is any less human, any less devastated by the loss of those innocent loved ones, than anyone in the US might be?

That is just the most recent travesty, many, many innocent children and other civilians have been killed by drones operating in parts of the world where we are not at war.

It seems there is a disconnect in this country among some people regarding the right to life of all human beings. At least during the Bush years, the 'left' condemned these killings. What makes 'right' now?

[whatchamacallit]

29. "but 9/11..."

and "People should be smarter than to live where there are terrorists..."

[hack89]

36. Actually we did

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

[sabrina 1]

40. And Democrats on DU supported that? I don't recall a single Democrat at the time

supporting that piece of garbage, Bush 'we rule the world' anti-Constitutional document. I do remember a few elected Dems who actually betrayed those who elected them and did vote for it, but none of them were ever on my list of potential candidates for the WH and it did backfire on them later, so it was a miscalution, politically, for them.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Was the woman and her five children killed in Afghanistan someone who fit this description? Were the hundreds of others killed by drone, people who fit that description?

Were the tens of thousands, maybe over one million Iraqis and Afghans and Pakistanis and Yemenis, people who fit the description?

Even IF I supported that Piece of Bush Crap 'legislation' which we had hoped would be rescinded once we elected a majority of Democrats, we have been killing mostly innocent people for over a decade now.

Why are we not safe if all this killing was supposed to make us safe? And how much more killing before we can 'feel safe'?

And surely you are not endorsing Bush policies on DU?

[hack89]

42. One No vote total between the Senate and House

House of Representatives

On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting. The Nay was Barbara Lee, D-CA. [2] Lee is notable as the only member of either house of Congress to vote against this bill.[3]

Senate

On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

[sabrina 1]

52. And there was much more debate following the passage of that resolution with many

Democrats opposing such broad authority and introducing amendments. See here:

Congressional Actions on the Iraq War Prior to the 2003 U.S. Invasion

But even if we go with the first resolution, what authority did this give to any president to go around the world killing people?

a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

It passed in 2001 intended to go after the perpetrators of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

You did not answer my question 'what did all those we have killed, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan do to justify their killing?

Why are we still killing innocent people, now with drones, in all of these countries? What is the current justification for all this killing? And when will it stop?

[coalition_unwilling]

43. We've only killed a few terrorists disguised as children. Hope I don't

need the icon.

[MattBaggins]

65. Are you calling Americans fuckwads?

[boppers]

86. Huh, thanks for pointing that perspective out.

I guess when military attacks, policing, and terrorism are considered equal, Osama bin Laden was really just trying to eliminate those dangerous Americans who might have been trying to kill indiscriminately in the name of establishing a theocracy.

Cuz, ya know, there's no difference.

[jeff47]

19. Then give me an alternative.

Yemen isn't going to extradite any suspects. Nor are they going to arrest and try them.

In the absence of any workable legal framework, what do you propose? "Sit back and do nothing" has demonstrably failed.

Drone strikes are obviously far from ideal, but we're choosing from a selection of "bad" options. I far prefer drone strikes to invasion or other "boots on the ground" options.

[Zalatix]

22. Yes, and killing people without evidence is also failing.

We're just making more and more enemies.

So... do you actually have an answer to the question in my OP? Would you push the button or not?

[jeff47]

24. Not posting the evidence publicly is not the same as not having evidence.

So... do you actually have an answer to the question in my OP?

So, do you actually have an answer to my question?

What's the alternative you would like us to use?

-Do nothing - has resulted in attacks on US/US people outside US.
-Invade - has resulted in quagmires.
-Spec Ops troops - extremely risky, "boots on the ground" is a larger diplomatic problem, frequently results in the same people just getting killed.

The difference between our questions is you're desperately searching for someone you can shout "hypocrite!!" at. I'm actually interested in finding an alternative to drone strikes that would actually work.

[whatchamacallit]

32. I guess it all hinges on what you believe

about 9/11 and the (absurd) war on terror. IMO the only winning move is not to play.

[jeff47]

55. Ignoring 9/11, "not playing" still results in attacks

Cole bombing, Embassies in Africa and others.

There's people out there who'd like to harm us. We have no way to arrest them and give them a fair trial. So do we just absorb their attacks, or do we go after them?

I don't think just absorbing their attacks is the best approach. But I'd love one more precise than a drone strike.

[Zalatix]

70. Okay this conversation is over until you give a solid answer to my OP.

I asked first, so I either get an answer first or I write your arguments off. You can go hang out with the pro-summary execution crowd and have fun.

I will not, however, be budged.

[jeff47]

105. You got your answer.

Your question is a sophomoric fishing attempt to call someone a hypocrite.

Now, you could keep fishing for someone you could call names, or you could help come up with a way where innocent people aren't dying to drone strikes or terrorist attacks.

Hrm....death....name calling....death....name calling. Boy, that's a hard decision.

[sabrina 1]

31. Well, we've been killing and torturing people for over ten years now, and still we are told,

we are 'not safe'. That seems like a total failed policy. As one anonymous State Dept official said after the slaugher of 24 Pakistani soldiers recently 'we cannot kill our way out of this'.

You are aware I'm sure that claiming the right to kill other people on a daily basis for 'our own safety' is not new. History is filled with Empires who made this claim, none of which are still in existence nor did they last very long.

Are you seriously making the claim that the only way we can be 'safe' is to keep on killing and torturing and bombing and destroying other nations? Didn't someone else once think they could 'kill their way to total world dominence' and didn't we condemn them for that? Not to mention, that as many as they killed, they did not succeed.

Are we so devoid of intelligence now that our only recourse is to kill our way to complete safety? What will we do about traffic accidents that kill more Americans than any terrorist could dream of, or deaths because of a lack of access to Health Care. Over half a million Americans have died as a result of no HC since 9/11.

What is the goal of all this killing by drone? Do you know? Is there even some kind of assessment as to when it will be 'safe' to stop killing people? And are Americans who die for lack f oHC any less dead than the remote chance of dying by terror attack? Do we really care about dead Americans, and if so, why did we allow all those people to die when we could have saved them had we spent all that war money on Americans who actually were in danger of dying?

[jeff47]

57. I'm asking for an alternative. Not a lecture.

"Do nothing" has resulted in more attacks. Cole, Embassies in Africa, and so on. So "do nothing" doesn't work. So we're left with doing "something".

I'd love for that "something" to be a fair and open trial. But that's not going to happen, because these folks have chosen their host countries very carefully to avoid extradition.

So what should we do?

Are you seriously making the claim that the only way we can be 'safe' is to keep on killing and torturing and bombing and destroying other nations?

I'm saying drone strikes on suspected terrorists has reduced the number of terrorist attacks. Which it has. I'm also asking for alternatives that would cause less "collateral damage".

Do we really care about dead Americans, and if so, why did we allow all those people to die when we could have saved them had we spent all that war money on Americans who actually were in danger of dying?

Drone strikes are cheap. It's one of the reasons the government is using them. The alternative that the Bush administration pursued, invasions, is very expensive.

What will we do about traffic accidents that kill more Americans than any terrorist could dream of, or deaths because of a lack of access to Health Care. Over half a million Americans have died as a result of no HC since 9/11.

You've provided examples of why invasions are a poor alternative. So what should we do instead?

And "do nothing" has gotten us bombed in the past. Do you wish to simply accept that death from terrorist attack is as equally inevitable as death from cancer? Something that's just "back luck, oh well, carry on." In my mind, continued terrorist attacks would result in more and more of a police state as the attacks are used to justify more and more loss of civil liberties. As crass as it sounds, I'd rather blow up suspected terrorists than turn the US into a police state.

[whatchamacallit]

60. Welcome to the Bizarro World of American "Justice"

In the American mind we *must* bring these people to justice for their transgressions, supposedly the worst of which is killing. Yet we can kill a thousand times more innocent people in our pursuit of justice and somehow not factor them into the equation. What kind of narcissistic assholes are we? When do the terrorized become the terrorists? Apparently, for chicken shit, self righteous Americans the answer is never.

BTW this: "As crass as it sounds, I'd rather blow up suspected terrorists than turn the US into a police state." pretty much says it all. Your being fine with executing people who are merely suspected, indicates you'd be fine living in a police state.

[woo me with science]

84. THANK YOU.

Last edited Thu May 10, 2012, 03:51 AM - Edit history (1)

And it's worth pointing out the ludicrousness of this little gem, in particular: "I'd rather blow up suspected terrorists than turn the US into a police state."

What utter horseshit. Anyone who has been paying attention sees that we are moving very quickly into a police state now *right along with* this despicable drone policy....and that those who defend the drone strikes are virtually always the very same ones who are on board defending, rationalizing, and denying the impact of the latest surveillance/police state legislation.

[whatchamacallit]

93. We have met the enemy and he is us

Hang in, wmws.

[jeff47]

108. Way to not read what I was saying

Here, let me enumerate what you missed:

1) Doing nothing resulted in large-scale terrorist attacks.
2) Terrorist attacks result in the US becoming more and more of a police state.
3) If we do nothing, and we are the victims of a large-scale attack, say goodbye to the bill of rights. And say hello to a right-wing junta as the public desperately searches for "safety" from the "daddy party".
4) Right-wing junta will execute a boatload of us for being liberals and thus enemies of the state. They'll probably also work to turn "The Hunger Games" into reality.

So...are drone strikes good? Nope. Never claimed they were. They are the least-bad alternative I am aware of.

So please propose your alternative to drone strikes that will actually reduce terrorist attacks so that Jebbie isn't president-for-life.

[whatchamacallit]

116. Of course you managed to ignore

Sabrina's point about Empire Blowback, and mine about American's shitty math skills when it comes to body counts, but hey, whatever gets you through the night.

[jeff47]

120. No, I fully acknowledge them.

With Sabrina's point, I said we'll receive blowback at this point even if we do nothing more in the Middle East. We've been fucking them over for decades, and that anger won't vanish quickly. Additionally, the US being the Great Satan is fantastic for the local governments, who can blame their failures on us and that isn't going to stop quickly even if we have no presence in the Middle East.

With your point, the difference is I expect a massively larger body count after the next large-scale attack. After all, how many people did we kill with our overreaction to 9/11? Another large-scale attack on the US is going to result in another massive overreaction, which will kill far more people than our drone strikes. (And I admit this point requires the drone strikes to work at disrupting terrorist groups. Currently, that matches what's being reported.)

Again, I don't like drone strikes. I don't like our other options more than I don't like drone strikes. Please provide me with a workable alternative so I can support a good option instead of a "least-bad" option.

[Zalatix]

96. News flash...

As crass as it sounds, I'd rather blow up suspected terrorists than turn the US into a police state.

Blowing up suspected terrorists is turning the US into a TERRORIST state. Because anyone can be declared a terrorist.

[jeff47]

109. And how many liberals should be executed to prevent that?

It's not like we'll be a liberal police state.

[sabrina 1]

98. Why do you think they hate us? Why are ME terrorists not blowing people up in Iceland

or Ireland do you think?

Do you really not see the 'alternative' that would stop people from wanting to attack the US?

Think about it for a while, and maybe the answer will come to you.

One thing is certain, if we keep killing people, they, like us when someone kills our people, will keep looking for revenge. Each time we kill another child we create more enemies. Frankly considering how many children we have slaughtered, I am amazed there have been so few looking for revenge.

9/11 didn't happen because someone felt like blowing something up. There is history that many Americans choose not to know.

When we stop killing people, get out of their countries, stop stealing their resources, and it would be a good thing to apologize for the harm we have done to their societies and try to make some kind of reparation, then we won't have to worry about terrorists. We could also start prosecuting war criminals and torturers, just to show we are sincere, to acknowledge the injustices we have perpetrated against them.

I'm surprised you needed to ask. Unless you believe that we have some kind of divine right to go around the world killing people, for decades now, supporting their dictators and stealing their resources, without consequences. Terror, as we call it, is a reaction to policies that have been so bad, for this country and theirs. Because there are always consequences. It's mind-boggling that we think we are above any consequences for our actions.

It's really not that difficult. We just need to rid this government of neocons and warmongers and we will be a lot safer from the inevitable blow-back that all warmongering nations face and have throughout history. I don't get the whining about terror, and the pretense that we are so innocent. Amazing. And your solution is to keep doing what created the problem in the first place?

[whatchamacallit]

101. +Graham's Number

It's really not an impenetrable mystery is it?

[Mariana]

102. "There is history that many Americans choose not to know."

Exactly. This bullshit that the US "did nothing" and "nothing" magically led to terrorist attacks out of the blue is ridiculous. How can anyone say that with a straight face? I'd like to know exactly when they imagine that time was, that the US "did nothing" in those countries that spawn most of the terrorists. I certainly don't remember any such time.

[jeff47]

113. Oh, we definitely caused the hatred that lead to the attacks

But we aren't in 1953 anymore. So we don't have the ability to undo what we did.

What we need is a plan to deal with where we are today. Drone strikes are awful, but they are less awful than the alternatives.

[woo me with science]

103. +100000 nt

[jeff47]

111. Today isn't 1953.

And unless you've got a time machine in your pocket, we can't go back and undo our moronic middle eastern policy that got us to where we are today.

So, today, what do we do?

Do nothing? Ok, that means we will be attacked. Has been the result of doing nothing every time we've tried it so far. So how do you propose we ameliorate the problems from that? You've got a significant loss of life from the attack itself, but much more importantly you also have to deal with the reaction of a frightened populous and what they'll allow the government to do. And if terrorists do something spectacular, the Patriot act is gonna look positively Jeffersonian compared to what happens.

So, we'll need your plan for how we get the US public to not abandon civil liberties in return for supposed security. And after our reaction to 9/11 I'm not sure that's possible, so I'm very interested in your plan.

We could also go larger, with invasions or spec ops attacks. But I don't think that's the direction you want to go.

Or we go with drone strikes, which appear to be disrupting terrorist groups and killing fewer people than either an invasion or our over-reaction to another attack.

You should stop pretending that I like the drone strike option. I don't. I am well aware that drone strikes are bad. But I don't like the other options more. That's why I'm asking for an alternative that won't kill innocents, is actually possible, and won't result in us liberals being thrown into camps as enemies of the state.

[sabrina 1]

115. You think we 'did nothing' since 1953?

Then I cannot help you understand. No wonder you cannot come up with a solution.

[jeff47]

119. No, 1953 is when we started fucking things up.

You are smarter than this.

[coalition_unwilling]

46. Abraham Lincoln said, "The best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him

a friend."

That was back when America really was the last, best hope. Not so much these days.

[jeff47]

56. How, exactly, do you propose we make friends with al Queda?

And if we offer any concessions, how exactly do you plan for those concessions to not trigger attacks by other groups? Giving al Queda some of what they want would encourage other people to blow us up to get what they want.

(Note that I'm using al Queda as a placeholder for several terrorist groups)

[coalition_unwilling]

68. Your squeamishness about 'concessions' to terrorists doesn't seem to be shared by

the Obama administration.

Fact is, we negotiate with 'terrorists' whenever it suits our interests and only say we don't for public consumption.

'http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/world/asia/pow-is-focus-of-talks-on-taliban-prisoner-swap.html?_r=1&hp

[jeff47]

107. The Taliban aren't al Queda.

They haven't attacked us outside Afghanistan. Despite W's propaganda attempts to convince us otherwise.

Yes, they provided a safe haven for al Queda, but that doesn't mean they actually are terrorists.

So have any thoughts on the actual al Queda, or any of its associated groups?

[sad sally]

80. The US has made "friends" with al Queda- more than once - not for particularly good reasons

“In the 1980s, the CIA provided some $5 billion in military aid for Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, but scaled down operations after Moscow pulled out in 1989. However, Selig Harrison of the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently told a conference in London that the CIA created the Taliban “monster” by providing some $3 billion for the ultra-fundamentalist militia in their 1994-6 drive to power.” Times of India, March 7, 2001

[Zalatix]

97. Ouch, you just made one argument explode...

[jeff47]

106. At that time, they weren't attacking us.

Yes, it was obvious that they would in the future, but they hadn't yet. You don't have to try to convince me the Reagan administration was full of morons who never bothered to think about tomorrow.

Today isn't the 1980s. So how, specifically, do we get al Queda to stop attacking US people without encouraging other groups to attack to get what they want?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. What's the difference between a drone and a flight of B-17s over industrial cities?

Honest question.

[Robb]

21. That's actually the perfect question for this OP.

[Zalatix]

23. Let's trade. You answer my question first

and I'll answer yours. Deal?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. The OP is so flawed as to be unanswerable. I reject the premise on several points

For one thing, I'm not long time supporter of summary executions; or even a short time supporter for that matter.

For another thing, a would-be dictator will manufacture such evidence as they require to affect their schemes. It doesn't really matter if they send a drone or a lone gunman or microwave my brain from outer space.

I suppose I could be mis-identified and a court of appeals process would be nice but I suppose that's the risk you live with if you're stomping around the hinterlands of Pakistan and Yemen.

As a matter of fact there is a constitutional prohibition to summary executions. However, killing people engaged in acts of war is not considered summary execution. This is known as a categorical error. You may want to call it that, and in some cases I might even echo your call, but unless you're mad at congress for failing to impeach Obama -- or you're mad at us for not calling on congress to impeach Obama -- I'm not sure what the grand display of indignation is supposed to accomplish.

Now, as to my question -- why does the fact it is a drone matter so much? There was chest-thumping aplenty when Osama bin Laden was dispatched and it was renewed on the anniversary of his dispatch. Had bin Laden been killed via a drone would that have diminished the hoots and high-fives? I doubt it. Are we supposed to flagellate ourselves over collateral damage when less than a century ago we would level entire cities, killing tens of thousands of civilians, to scratch a ball bearing factory? Feel free to call FDR a war criminal if that's your professed principle.

War strikes me as a nasty, horrible, vile, wasteful, cruel endeavour. It lowers good people and it elevates the evil. It ruins everything it touches. War is, as an essential fact, the engineering of destruction and killing on as broad and efficient front as possible. It seeks to either compel an enemy's surrender or outright destroy him if he refuses. It is not Monday Night Football where stats are compared and one season gives way to another. I have long held misgivings about our response to 9/11 in moral and practical terms.

However, if you're accusing Obama of being the sole, unilateral propagator of the on-going conflict please say as much. Please tell me and everyone here that you think al Qaeda and the others would disarm today and return to their homes to pursue peaceful ends if only Obama would stop antagonizing them. Please stop tip-toeing around these silly hypotheticals and just say what you actually want to see as a practical result. Until then, Obama will continue to fight the war as a war with all that entails.

[Zalatix]

69. Your comprehension of my OP is flawed. For one,

I was not just talking about drones. The very TITLE of my OP mentioned summary executions, which means it is a part of my gripe.

Second of all, I declined to mention President Obama on purpose: because things will get even WORSE when a Republican administration gets a hold of drones to implement the already flawed concept of summary executions.

It's too late to flog FDR. But what I want to see in the NEAR future is an end to summary executions, let alone drones.

[stevenleser]

38. That is the point that never gets answered. Civilians always die in military actions, ALWAYS.

Killing someone in a military action is not a summary execution.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. Always.

In olden days cities were held under seige until misery and privation forced surrender and then more times than not they were sacked. In the American Civil War there was a calculated effort to destroy the war-making capacity of the Confederacy through Sherman's March to the Sea. World War 1 and Redux just put the icing on the cake of mass-destruction.

Now high-technology is blamed for the destruction of entire houses when once, not so long ago, entire cities perished in a single night.

[Bonobo]

100. I will answer.

There isn't MUCH difference. One is marginally more cowardly then the other since it involves no pilots and is marginally more terror inducing imho.

But the real answer is that I would vehemently oppose B-17's making hundreds of flights over a sovereign country just as much PARTICULARLY when the attacks are being controlled by the CIA and not one of the branches of our military so the issues of accountability are murky.

[treestar]

28. Who has supported summary executions?

You're defining the term the way you want to. And adding a label.

Most people on DU are against war and its attendant horrors, except where absolutely necessary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. "We have to fight them there...." Isn't that the excuse the murderers are using?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. Obama is a murderer? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Opinions differ.

Is he responsible for the killing of civilians? Or, is it just the guys guiding the weapons?

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Seeing as the guys guiding the missiles are acting on Obama's orders

They aren't doing this on their own.

That being said, what are we supposed to do? Demand Obama's indictment on war crimes? Demand his impeachment? Refuse to vote for him?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Whatever you think appropriate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. This may come as a shock to you but the CIA is not randomly choosing

houses to blow-up. Either Obama is being briefed on who is being killed or he is sitting passively on the sidelines watching his agency, where every employee serves at his pleasure, committs murder after murder.

Instead of playing silly word games please clarify for us why Obama is NOT responsible for what goes on in the agencies he was elected to run and reform.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Word games?

Try these:

Collateral Damage

Regrettable civilian casualties

Unfortunate incident

A few bad apples

Our troops were under a great deal of stress

The enemy was using civilians to hide behind

We will investigate

We don't torture

Enhanced interrogation techniques

The "defense" budget

We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here

They gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country

National Security

Vital National Interests

We must stay the course

The Tonkin Gulf Incident

The Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction

We are turning the corner in Vietnam

We had to burn the village in order to save it

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. I see you keep shifting away from the obvious

Why is that? What are you afraid to confront?

Either Obama is the CinC or he is not. Is the possibility that Obama is doing his best in a world with no optimal solutions really so threatening to whatever fragile position you hold?

Obama is the Commander in Chief. He makes the best calls he can. Accept it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

114. Do you accept killing civilians in a lost war?

Is that really the best available "solution" (one that's not working)?

[coalition_unwilling]

49. Emphatic K&R. Not a proponent of extra-judicial punishment of any sort, nor of

extra-judicial executions. So the hypothetical does not apply to me.

This is an important question to ask those who favor the use of drones and summary executions. over and over again. Make them defend their positions. Often times in the act of defending such a position, one comes to realize its horror. See Daniel Ellsberg.

[stevenleser]

53. No one here is. It is a straw man. nt

[Zalatix]

72. Thank you, you totally get it.

[MrSlayer]

54. I live in the States. They won't need a drone to come and get me.

Your hypothetical is just silly. Even if I ended up on this list somehow, they are not going to send a drone to bomb my South Philly rowhome. They're just not and it's beyond ridiculous to think they would. They'd just send the F.B.I. to my door and arrest me without incident. There aren't going to be any in country drone strikes. You get droned if you are in a place that cannot be infiltrated by troops.

[Fumesucker]

63. Not going to bomb a row house in Philly?

They already did it in 1985..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

[MrSlayer]

73. Not the same thing at all.

Not even close.

[Fumesucker]

74. That's true...

They basically took out the entire fucking block, not just one house..

[MrSlayer]

77. Because the M.O.V.E. people soaked the rooftops in gasoline.

That's why Osage Avenue burnt down.

At any rate the drone attack scenerio is totally ridiculous. It will never happen.

[Fumesucker]

82. Wikipedia doesn't mention anything about anyone soaking rooftops in gasoline..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing

A police helicopter then dropped a four-pound bomb made of C-4 plastic explosive and Tovex, a dynamite substitute, onto the roof of the house. The resulting explosion caused incendiary materials listed in the police indictment, and stored by MOVE in the house, to catch fire, thus causing the house to catch fire. The resulting fire ignited a massive blaze which eventually destroyed 65 houses.

To recap, the police dropped a bomb from a helicopter on a house in a crowded urban neighborhood.

What is the functional difference between a helicopter and a drone as a weapons delivery system?

[MrSlayer]

85. Was wiki there? No.

Perhaps I'll update the site.

Still calling the scenerio ridiculous and paranoid.

[Fumesucker]

91. How do you know someone who wrote the Wiki article wasn't there?

Next I suppose you'll tell me you were on the scene.

Lots of roofing materials are made from petroleum products, tar on flat roofs and asphalt shingles on pitched ones, a little difficult to get started but they burn like a bonfire once they are going.

[Zalatix]

90. Do you have any proof of them soaking the rooftops in gasoline

or are you expecting us to take you at your word?

The previous poster's point is valid. A drone attack on American citizens, here, is NOT ridiculous; equally bad things have been done in the past. And this isn't just about attacks on Americans in America. It is about summary executions everywhere, done upon anyone, by Americans, or by any "civilized" country.

Would you like to claim that this never happened?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

[Life Long Dem]

62. A drone strike because of mistaken identity

Sounds like the same luck as getting hit by a car.

[msanthrope]

64. I'll look for the drone strike right after the black helicopter takes me to the FEMA camp. nt

[ZombieHorde]

66. The civil war had many summary executions, and I don't see many complaints about them.

We declared some Americans of being enemies of the state, and we killed them without trial. Many of those killings were self defense, but many were ambushes too.

The ambush kills are what I am calling summary executions.

Were the summary executions wrong then?

[whatchamacallit]

67. So, morality and ethics are relative to the popularity of the conflict?

This place has really gotten weird...

[ZombieHorde]

78. I have a very strong feeling we have two very different interpretations of my civil war post.

"So, morality and ethics are relative to the popularity of the conflict?"

Morality and ethics are tools for accomplishing goals, such as the goal of hurting those who are seemingly different than yourself.

[Zalatix]

71. Answering a question with a question?

Would you push the button or not?

[ZombieHorde]

79. I would push the botton, but I don't expect a consitutional admendment to

stop summary executions. I am not convinced those in charge of summary executions respect the Constitution as much as they claim.

But again, yes, I would push the button.

[Zalatix]

88. And I say summary executions were wrong during the Civil War, too.

[cstanleytech]

75. Drones arent the problem.

The weapons on them and relying on them to much to carry out such strikes is however so should the use of them be reduced as weapons platforms? Yes.

[bluestate10]

76. Given the absurdity of the question, I don't tgink I will have to pushb the

"Get me back in time button". But let's say that me name got mixed up with a real terrorist. I have enough faith in our legal system that multiple attempts will be made to physically arrest me before a drone is used, even under fucked up republican, which BTW, are too small a percentage of the american population to take the control that you speculate.

[sad sally]

81. If the hands of time could go back and there had been an actual debate on the use of drones to

assassinate (execute) at will, I fear our past, current and future presidents wouldn't care if killing by drone attacks was illegal, unaccountable and undemocratic, they would continue.

The very same US government that wages drone wars, comes to the American people and tells us that we should welcome these machine assassinations, and that we should also accept an invasion of surveillance drones policing and "protecting the homeland" from other US citizens the government has deemed to be potential terrorists, using criteria they've come up with.

[JVS]

95. "a Constitutional amendment occurs to forbid summary executions."

Isn't that already covered in the constitution? I don't think we lack laws on this, it's the willingness to follow the laws and the willingness to punish those who break the laws that seem to be missing.

[Art_from_Ark]

118. Yup, both the 5th and 14th amendments are supposed to prohibit summary executions

[Zalatix]

122. Tell that to the two U.S. citizens killed in Yemen. One of whom was a child.

[Art_from_Ark]

123. Notice I said "supposed to"

[Zalatix]

124. I know, sorry that came off as pointed at you.

I meant that these laws seem to be little comfort for those who get hit by these drones.

BTW I feel that the aforementioned rights should be extended to all people, not just our citizens.

[Sancho]

110. Drones kill, but they terrorize too, like the V-2 in WWII and bombing Hanoi in Vietnam...

The military always think they can win by "breaking" the will of the population. Drones that see you and kill you without warning, and sometimes kill your family if they happen to be nearby, are what the military think will get the Pakistani's to cooperate.

Like almost all of history the most common response of people is to defend themselves at all costs.

For every terrorist killed, along with innocent people, the drone will create 10 times the future enemies.

[Zalatix]

117. 10 times as many future enemies, indeed. That's another big problem here.

[Unaccountable]

121. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)