Opinion of American drone policies

[bedstuy]

If the choice is between invading and occupying failed states (Bush's way) and drone strikes (Obama's way), I think drone strikes are a fantastic policy.  The evidence we have seems to show that the drone strikes have significantly disrupted Al Qaeda and killed a large number of their leadership.

I really don't understand this civil liberties argument in regard to drones.  Drone strikes are in retaliation against terrorist attacks on the United States.  They are legal under international law as self-defense.  Armed conflicts kill people, both "innocent" and "guilty."  That's incredibly sad but, saying death due to legal military action is extrajudicial is missing the point.  Many more people died in WWII or the Korean conflict.  There was no judge making a legal determinations about every Chinese or German soldier. 

[bedstuy]

If the choice is between invading and occupying failed states (Bush's way) and drone strikes (Obama's way), I think drone strikes are a fantastic policy.  The evidence we have seems to show that the drone strikes have significantly disrupted Al Qaeda and killed a large number of their leadership.

Except the choice is between drone strikes, drone strikes w/out killing US citizens, or no drone strikes.

Well, I think the citizen distinction is spurious which is kind of what I said.  At least until we invent foreigner seeking missiles...

[bedstuy]

It's Obama's worst policy and the reason why I am no longer a Democrat a Ron Paul Republican.

When a Greenie and a Paulite agree so strongly on something, you know whoever's on the other side is  heavily in the wrong.

lol, yeah those left-wing and paultard loons who think 9/11 was an inside job must be right

IDK where you got the 9/11 part from. We're grounded enough in reality to know that wasn't an inside job.

...or at least the Greenie is. Only speaking for myself.

What a strange world we live in, where Lief supports extra-judicial killings and calls us the extremists.

Hint: If you send robots to shoot at people who've barely heard of indoor plumbing, you are the Empire. They are the bloody Ewoks.

That's ridiculous. Drones strikes have not targeted random people.  There's no evidence of that as far as I've seen.  Members of Al Qaeda are a legitimate military target and they're far from cute, cuddly characters from Star Wars. 

[bedstuy]

Whoops, we found a Taliban leader, better shoot up every male 16 and up regardless of circumstance.

Do you think that the US military wants to kill civilians or doesn't care about collateral damage or the risk to civilians?  They make mistakes but they don't have that cavalier attitude towards human life.  That's ridiculous. 

And if you think Al Qaeda would stop trying to kill Americans if we only comported ourselves better, you're naive. 

[bedstuy]

lol, identifying someone as a terrorist is very different from pulling someone over because they're black or whatever. I mean, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-drone camp, but their arguments are just so mind-numbingly stupid.

Drones: Because violation Pakistani sovereignty is always the best policy.

On some level, the US has the permission of the Pakistani government to conduct drone strikes.  Even if we didn't have permission, under principles of international law, the US is within its rights.  Al Qaeda is engaging in armed attacks against the US and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to prevent Al Qaeda from operating in its tribal region.  The US has a right to defend itself, even if it intrudes onto what is technically the territory of Pakistan.

Part of being a sovereign nation is not allowing an NGO (Al Qaeda) to basically set up a independent state within your borders and use your country as a base to attack innocent people.  Pakistan has failed at that. 

[bedstuy]

Option 3. It is a violation of human rights and law to kill people who have not been charged with offences.

I don't really have a problem with drones if they are killing known terrorists though. But this could kill innocent civilians and as others said, surely a right to a fair trial is the best idea?

What international law are you referring to?  There are situations where people can be legally killed.  Legal military actions kill people.  Police can legally kill someone engaged in a shooting spree.  Obviously, the best case scenario is to capture people alive, but it's not always practical.  Would you say that a US soldier can't return fire from a Taliban insurgent (at least until the Taliban soldier has been convicted in a court)?  Give me a break.

[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? 

[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.