Opinion of American drone policies

[patrick1]

How is killing al-Awlaki different from killing bin Laden?

Bin Laden actually killed people as opposed to posting a blog?

A few things spring to mind
1. Awlaki was much more involved than that operational 2. Bin Laden didn't really kill anyone either if you want to get down to semantics nonsense. 3. should we have waited around until he was successful before we killed him.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All this guy did was write for a newspaper, and all these guys did was manage a radio station by that standard.

[SPC]

How is killing al-Awlaki different from killing bin Laden?

Bin Laden actually killed people as opposed to posting a blog?

A few things spring to mind
1. Awlaki was much more involved than that operational 2. Bin Laden didn't really kill anyone either if you want to get down to semantics nonsense. 3. should we have waited around until he was successful before we killed him.

As far as I am aware, hiring a hitman is legally considered murder, so I see no reason why financial reimbursement for suicide attackers would be any different. And where do you draw the line with such a Minority Report-esque standard for extrajudicial killing?

[SPC]

All this guy did was write for a newspaper, and all these guys did was manage a radio station by that standard.

Amazing how you don't even bother to read the Wikipedia article that demonstrates greater involvement than that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[patrick1]

How is killing al-Awlaki different from killing bin Laden?

Bin Laden actually killed people as opposed to posting a blog?

A few things spring to mind
1. Awlaki was much more involved than that operational 2. Bin Laden didn't really kill anyone either if you want to get down to semantics nonsense. 3. should we have waited around until he was successful before we killed him.

As far as I am aware, hiring a hitman is legally considered murder, so I see no reason why financial reimbursement for suicide attackers would be any different. And where do you draw the line with such a Minority Report-esque standard for extrajudicial killing?

Awlaki had his prints on plenty of murders, attempted murders and active plots against America and its citizens at home and abroad. Your characterization of him as some blogger is just wrong. The gov't shouldnt  put forth all of their evidence to the public- that is bad opsec.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

All this guy did was write for a newspaper, and all these guys did was manage a radio station by that standard.

And this guy simply published his paper.

[politicallefty]

Use of drones is better than sending in troops in most cases. Given that the enemy in this case is a loose organization rather than a state, they can be in places where we just can't send troops to capture them. Using troops would probably result in far more bystander casualties.

If someone among the enemy organization happens to be a US citizen, I have no problem with the notion of using a drone against them. I also have no issue with some form of judicial oversight - if an American citizen living abroad has enough evidence against them to label them a terrorist and there is no practical means of bringing them in for a trial, then it shouldn't be too big of a deal to get a panel of judges to sign off on authorizing a drone strike if the opportunity should arise.

For the most part, I agree with this. However, I think judicial oversight is an absolute must. We need to set up a special court for this, much like the FISA Court. I'd also say that drone strikes should only be allowed in areas where Congress has given specific authorization. I do not trust the executive branch with that much power without judicial and Congressional oversight.

I did vote for the first option (though with some reservations), but there needs to be standards and rules in place. The standard for the first option needs to be considerably high, certainly higher than for non-citizens. And, as I said above, strict judicial oversight over drone strikes is absolutely necessary.

[Politico]

While I support our current drone policies, I suspect this poll would look different if Mitt Romney were president (I still recall how the left felt about current policies when Bush was in the White House, which is really amusing when you consider that Obama basically continued the Bush Doctrine with respect to anti-terror measures). This phenomenon, which helps control the sheeple of the left, is one of the reasons why some folks enjoy having Obama in the White House...

[Blackacre]

While I support our current drone policies, I suspect this poll would look different if Mitt Romney were president (I still recall how the left felt about current policies when Bush was in the White House, which is really amusing when you consider that Obama basically continued the Bush Doctrine with respect to anti-terror measures). This phenomenon, which helps control the sheeple of the left, is one of the reasons why some folks enjoy having Obama in the White House...

Speaking from the left, the only difference between my reaction to a Romney drone Policy and Obama's is the difference between raw anger and anger mixed with mostly disappointment. Obama's supposed to be better than this. If you notice, it's the left who's holding up the CIA director nomination because of drone policies, as opposed to holding up Hagel because of Benghazi, for example.

Don't make it seem like the left rallies behind Obama on this issue. If anything, the left is deeply divided between the dovish liberals and the hawkish liberals. Bill freaking Maher cites this issue as the one where he opposes Obama the most on.

[King]

Romney would probably cut drones.  He didn't seem to support anything military wise that saved the government money as cheaper is worse.  Helicopters with salaried humans would be preferred.

[politicus]

One aspect missing from this debate is that drone technology is fairly simple. Pretty soon a large number of states will be able to use them. What happens if 15-20 nations (think fx Turkey, Egypt, Israel, India, Iran, China and Russia) start using drones against people they perceive as terrorists?

Once you give up the idea that you have to declare war before you kill someone in a sovereign foreign country things become pretty complicated. So the Obama administration is setting a very dangerous example with their drone policy.

 

[dead0man]

All those countries already have drones...with the exception of maybe Egypt.

Again, how is using a drone to kill a terrorist different than using a helicopter(jet/missile/whatever)?

[7,052,770]

Option 1.  It's one thing to be against military action period, but why would anyone want to oppose the most efficient, targeted method with the fewest accidental civilian deaths?

[fezzyfestoon]

Option 1.  It's one thing to be against military action period, but why would anyone want to oppose the most efficient, targeted method with the fewest accidental civilian deaths?

When warfare is made easier and cheaper, it makes me more nervous about a country with an already compulsively over eager military. At least as far as that one gripe I have with the drones goes.

[politicus]

All those countries already have drones...with the exception of maybe Egypt.

Again, how is using a drone to kill a terrorist different than using a helicopter(jet/missile/whatever)?

My point was that a constantly increasing number of countries will have drone tech, if it becomes acceptable to use them overseas we have a problem.

Drones are different in that they are unmanned (no risk of losing your own soldiers) so they are tempting to use for governments. Generally all attacks on foreign soil without a declaration of war are problematic.   

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Drones are different in that they are unmanned (no risk of losing your own soldiers) so they are tempting to use for governments. Generally all attacks on foreign soil without a declaration of war are problematic.   

Yes, but Obama would counter we are "at war" with Al Qaeda.

[politicus]

Drones are different in that they are unmanned (no risk of losing your own soldiers) so they are tempting to use for governments. Generally all attacks on foreign soil without a declaration of war are problematic.   

Yes, but Obama would counter we are "at war" with Al Qaeda.

Sure. Its perfectly understandable why they do it, but its still a slippery slope. 
The consequences of the idea of a "war" between an NGO and a nation state are far reaching and a break with the traditional international system. Terrorism used to be viewed as a form of crime which was the business of police forces and intelligence agencies and where the object was to bring the terrorists to justice. Making it a war raises the question if you can fight that war on a sovereign nation states territory without its consent, without having to declare war against that nation state. Its legally a very strange situation. The US is not at war with Yemen, but it still kills people on yemenitic territory incl. civilians.
I think its one thing to hunt down and kill terrorists in genuinely failed states without any established authorities like Somalia. But if you do it in countries with authorities in control it is basically an act of war against that state and this war should be declared.
Obviously some cases a tricky. In Pakistan where the intelligence service basically run their own foreign policy and some areas a outside government control, but the government still has a huge military and security apparatus its difficult to determine whether or not the state is "failed".

[Sbane]

AFAIK, Yemen supports US strikes against terrorists.

[Jared]

Why would any American support the government have the ability to kill you without trail or due process?

Obama has been really horrible on civil liberties, even worse than Bush.

[Lief 🗽]

Why would any American support the government have the ability to kill you without trail or due process?

I don't think any of the posters on here are terrorists living in Yemen, so I'm not sure who "you" is supposed to mean there.

[bedstuy]

Why would any American support the government have the ability to kill you without trail or due process?

Obama has been really horrible on civil liberties, even worse than Bush.

I don't understand this point at all.  The government can kill you without trial or due process, on American soil.  Have you ever heard of the police? 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why would any American support the government have the ability to kill you without trail or due process?

Obama has been really horrible on civil liberties, even worse than Bush.

I don't understand this point at all.  The government can kill you without trial or due process, on American soil.  Have you ever heard of the police? 

I wasn't aware the police had the right to deliberately kill people who don't pose an immediate threat to other lives.

[bedstuy]

Why would any American support the government have the ability to kill you without trail or due process?

Obama has been really horrible on civil liberties, even worse than Bush.

I don't understand this point at all.  The government can kill you without trial or due process, on American soil.  Have you ever heard of the police? 

I wasn't aware the police had the right to deliberately kill people who don't pose an immediate threat to other lives.

Well, they sure do have that right.  There's a Supreme Court case about it.

[perdedor]

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACountingDronesFinalNotEmbargo.pdf

This study suggests that 50 civilians are killed in drone strikes for every 1 terrorist.

or...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Our government and our citizens need to drop this fantasy of an "easy" war  that we can fight remotely with surgical precision. It's a delusion -- our exceptionalism is still getting thousands of people killed.

[Mechaman]

http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACountingDronesFinalNotEmbargo.pdf

This study suggests that 50 civilians are killed in drone strikes for every 1 terrorist.

or...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Our government and our citizens need to drop this fantasy of an "easy" war  that we can fight remotely with surgical precision. It's a delusion -- our exceptionalism is still getting thousands of people killed.

Yes, all we have really managed to do is make imperialism cheaper.

Further, I think it should be the responsibility of the policy makers and military leaders of this country to ponder the effects of drone warfare on the mental wellbeing of the residents of areas like northern Pakistan and the like.  Going about your daily life always under the fear that one of those evil sky demons will take your life one day can't be good on your sanity.

Cue "buh buh but EVIL TERRISTS!" from the "violence is okay when a Democrat does it!" crowd.