General Discussion

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)

29. I've said from the beginning that I think the focus on drones is a red herring

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 10:34 PM

Mar 2013

Either you are pro the use of force in a situation, or you aren't.

The only answer I have ever heard that is compelling in the other direction is what Medea Benjamin told me when I interviewed her and that is that in areas where drones have been operating frequently, i.e. the tribal areas of Pakistan, the inhabitants are terrorized by drones repeatedly hovering/circling overhead.

Other than that, if someone is killed by a drone or an assault by special forces, or a helicopter attack, or attack by a squadron of F-16's, they are just as dead. Focusing on the weapons system in question is a red herring.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why the furor over drones? Even weaponized drones? [View all] Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 OP

+1 Buzz Clik Mar 2013 #1

Isn't a drone just a more modern Bay Boy Mar 2013 #2

A cynical statement Trajan Mar 2013 #3

Cell phones let assassins communicate the location of their targets. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #4

yes ... Trajan Mar 2013 #6

Is it not already lawful to spy on people who are in plain view? GodlessBiker Mar 2013 #8

but you can't just kill them without due process ThomThom Mar 2013 #38

Ask John Dillinger what he feels about this. cliffordu Mar 2013 #66

Because drones are the due-process-free weapon of choice. Sterile. Neat. DirkGently Mar 2013 #5

Most who die here prior to "due process" quaker bill Mar 2013 #18

Government sanctioned killings are a different topic from handgun murders. DirkGently Mar 2013 #20

I believe it is sanctioned when done in the process of law enforcement quaker bill Mar 2013 #22

Okay. And a fleet of anonymous flying murder robots will improve this how? DirkGently Mar 2013 #27

First quaker bill Mar 2013 #49

People are really starting to get nervous about technology applied to spying/killing Fumesucker Mar 2013 #7

We've had that capability with satellites for years. Decades, even. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #11

Satellites are truly significant investments of money, time and materiel Fumesucker Mar 2013 #14

so it's really all about the weed? hfojvt Mar 2013 #61

You just described helicopters jeff47 Mar 2013 #71

Helicopters are hardly disposable and their operating costs are high Fumesucker Mar 2013 #75

Helicopters are only obvious if they are flying low. jeff47 Mar 2013 #78

That is really what worries me is who in the future will have drones? ThomThom Mar 2013 #39

Every new technology requires clarification LeftInTX Mar 2013 #48

Outlaw DNA! randome Mar 2013 #64

Indeed. No one is alive to remember the furor over fingerprints! MADem Mar 2013 #79

+1 KoKo Mar 2013 #87

How many Americans get pissed off when the police kill a US citizen.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #9

Drones Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #13

Interesting response, but you didn't answer my question. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #15

The point was, there is no difference between a drone and other police weapons Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #19

Police helicopters don't fire at people and they have people inside of them. Two differences. Bluenorthwest Mar 2013 #10

Due process is almost certainly a lengthy process. Almost certainly it involves dozens of people. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #12

So 'an official' giving an order is the same to you as a long process in which a jury delivers the Bluenorthwest Mar 2013 #56

Are you lecturing or debating? Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #57

Handguns have people holding them quaker bill Mar 2013 #21

People inside police helicopters do in the US. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #31

Actually, police helicopters do fire at people. jeff47 Mar 2013 #72

In this case, it is about the weapon The Straight Story Mar 2013 #16

The entire history of warfare is the history of weaponry evolving onenote Mar 2013 #40

My Take: The Straight Story Mar 2013 #42

+1 Blue_Tires Mar 2013 #62

That reminds me of a story I read in Isaac Asimov's Sci-Fi Magazine CJCRANE Mar 2013 #76

why allow an uneeded and unwanted device just so corporate whores can make profits?? nt msongs Mar 2013 #17

Many people erroneously believe that they are US-Only Technology. MADem Mar 2013 #23

And some of them look like cute little RC model airplanes. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #26

But many of them do not. The French models are nothing to sneeze at. MADem Mar 2013 #35

Agreed BO 08 Mar 2013 #41

Per the Attorney General of the United States: baldguy Mar 2013 #24

Yup. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #28

the same AG who says it's ok to let criminals get away with crime if they are too big? nt msongs Mar 2013 #30

To put them in a real bind quaker bill Mar 2013 #25

I've said from the beginning that I think the focus on drones is a red herring stevenleser Mar 2013 #29

^^This^^ Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #32

Why? The same reason there was a 'shitstorm' over them when Bush was president. sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #33

You do realize that I oppose extrajudicial killing of people, right? Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #36

I'm not so sure BO 08 Mar 2013 #44

It is true, because a democracy ceases to be a democracy when it gives the power sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #54

There wasn't a shitstorm over drones when Bush was President. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #67

What? Were you around back then? sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #68

I don't think I ever heard drones discussed in the media or elsewhere before Obama. nt stevenleser Mar 2013 #69

I think you have it right. bluedigger Mar 2013 #34

If the police come at me with helicopters and assault rifles I have the doc03 Mar 2013 #37

Imagine president bush - not Presdient Obama - same scenarios Zax2me Mar 2013 #43

You clearly inferred a lot from an OP that did not espouse the use of the weapons. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #45

How cheap, painless, secret, and widely proliferated does use of force need to be for you? TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #47

I oppose any government orders to kill US Citizens. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #51

The reason why is obvious that anyone has a brain cell Harmony Blue Mar 2013 #46

Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy, King, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan . . . . Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #52

A foreign state didn't sanction such assassinations Harmony Blue Mar 2013 #55

Lets start over. What is it that you think I am arguing? Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #58

There are rules that govern their use. I think the term is "due process". Locrian Mar 2013 #50

I agree with you. And yes, it is the system. Not the weapon. The system. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #53

This post would have made a better OP. Bluenorthwest Mar 2013 #59

No. I wanted the OP I made. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #65

Dimes to doughnuts the OP hasn't a clue what "due process" entails. But she approves of the killing Romulox Mar 2013 #60

Donuts to your puke you never read the thread. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #74

Couldn't care less about your gender--it's the cheerleading for killing I'm disgusted by. Romulox Mar 2013 #81

Congrats on TOTALLY missing the point, which was decidedly NOT cheerleading. Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #82

I didn't miss any point. I reject your *justifications*. Romulox Mar 2013 #83

Uh huh. Why would there be furor over the perfect authoritarian weapon... 99Forever Mar 2013 #63

False framing... again... whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #70

Had you read this entire thread's discussion . . . . . Stinky The Clown Mar 2013 #73

Ah... whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #77

right on the money imho eom arely staircase Mar 2013 #80

Its many issues and not so simple Paul E Ester Mar 2013 #84

Drones don't kill people, the order to fire kills people Recursion Mar 2013 #85

The Laws have not kept up with the Technological Advances... KoKo Mar 2013 #88

I thought I would add an often overlooked situation involving drones Puzzledtraveller Mar 2013 #86