Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

So What Do You Do, David Karp, Founder of Tumblr?
Way before Yahoo! came calling, we spoke with David Karp to find out how he launched the platform at the ripe old age of 20. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: The Drone Wars

The Drone Wars

Post Reply Back to Forums

1–15 out of 15 messages

Author	Message

mpdodgson	Posted - 2/7/2013 2:54:16 PM \| show profile \| flag this post (With apologies to Lucas, 'cause even he couldn't come up with something this 'whiplash causing'.) Big event on the Hill today is the grilling of Obama’s pick to head the CIA, John Brennan – the current White House counter-terrorism adviser. And they're going to try and pressure him on details re: the Drone Program. Grilling by Dems mind you. This is truly 'down the rabbit hole' territory if you ask me. Some Dems are just abhorred by the whole policy of targeting terrorists with drones--because sometimes there is collateral damage--and can we really do this against Americans too?? Didn't we fight Bush&Cheney over this kind of legal gray area crap?? BUT...GOPers like Repubs on the Intel Committee, Lindsay Graham, and even Uber-Neo-Con Bolton are backing Obama. The Media is a whacked out blender mish-mash on this. Many of the left bloggers I folo are friggin besides themselves. Jon Stewart is basically calling everyone in the Obama WH a hypocrite. Fox in the morning is for the Admin, in the afternoon, they're against it, while BillO whines NBC and the lamestream media aren't covering it--even though the whole story broke on NBC. Go figure. To Drone or Not to Drone, that is the question. It's fascinating to watch former allies&enemies line up on opposing sides. IMO

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 2/7/2013 3:23:35 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I've always agreed with... the idea of going after terrorist leaders. In the case of non-state actors, there are no other strategic targets. You have to go after the leadership positions of networked structures to bring down the structure. Otherwise, you're simply killing low-level recruits and not really making a dent. As far as targeting Americans acting for an enemy of the U.S. -- if there was a rule that the U.S. could NOT target enemy Americans, how would the Union have fought the Civil War? Would we have let Confederates shoot all they wanted to -- but never fired back? Drones are just new technology. And new technology scares a lot of people. With a few exceptions -- such as the Global Hawk and other autonomous UAVs -- most drones are relatively low-tech RC airplanes. They're slow speed and lightweight which means they don't burn a lot of fuel and can stay airborne for a long time. They're simply mobile missile platforms -- nothing earth shaking about that. It's just that a drone can stay out on patrol a lot longer than an F-16 and be called in on a target more easily -- and a hell of a lot cheaper -- than a fighter jet or a cruise missile -- which is what we'd be using instead. And the drone can give you better, faster intel on your target before launching a jet or cruise missile from hundreds of miles away.

blackedtaped	Posted - 2/7/2013 5:18:27 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I can't believe my eyes... So let me see if I got this straight. The same person who quoted all kinds of Constitutional amendments prohibiting microchips thinks it is OK to target US citizens with drone attacks? So killing American citizens without benefit of trial is OK now? So I guess you must be in favor of the death penalty, after all those people actually had representation and a jury trial first. Oh and during the Civil War those were not US citizens, they were citizens of the Confederate States of America. They were required to take an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy and to renounce their US citizenship. After the war they were then required to take an oath of allegiance to the US government.

newscred	Posted - 2/7/2013 6:52:09 PM \| show profile \| flag this post What's all the fuss? Seems to me that if a U.S. citizen has 'gone over to the other side' he/she has willingly, consciously, given up their protection of citizenship. I see no problem with targeting them as we would any enemy who's intent on hurting us. Don't understand why targeting "the enemy" would be a threat to everyone else's "rights". Just my opinion.

orthicon	Posted - 2/7/2013 6:55:56 PM \| show profile \| flag this post i don't have a problem with killing u.s. "citizens".. who are actively involved in actions against the u.s... my thinking is that by doing so, they've forfeited the right to the protection of their citizenship.. and are as fair game as was osama bin laden..

mpdodgson	Posted - 2/7/2013 9:45:53 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I just think this shows how complex this subject can be. I AGREE with newscred. Damn. Never thought I'd hear me say that. I caught some of Brennan's testimony this afternoon. "defended Obama’s policy of targeted killings of terrorists, saying that some Americans had a misimpression that “we take strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We only take such action as a last resort to save lives when there’s no other alternative” to avert a threat to the nation." Of course al-Awlaki is a good example. An American who renounced his citizenship, and actually planned to attack us. 'Take him out' as far as I'm concerned. And sure as it hell beats invading an entire country resulting in a 100,000 deaths or so. But is there a 'dark side to this', a 'political side'?? Hell yes. I'm very content with the Obama Admin having this power (and arch-neo-con or not, I even trust Brennan) but the idea that this lays down a precedent that 'President_______' can use. Yea. That's scary. IMO.

Newzheimer	Posted - 2/8/2013 4:24:18 AM \| show profile \| flag this post If someone such as Anwar al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico and an American citizen, by encouraging and inciting attacks on American interests, American property, American soil and other American citizens, has committed treason. The penalty for treason is death. It's not like there's no evidence of his crimes--he broadcast them all over the Internet, which as we all know, is forever. Better to take him out by a drone than to risk any more lives by going in after him on the ground.

cdnreprtr	Posted - 2/8/2013 10:23:04 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Like it or not ... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" ....Habeas Corpus, freedom from "cruel and unusual punishment", trial by jury and counsel, are enshrined and inalienable. Might want to look up that word "inalienable." It means no one can renounce it, or have it taken away, for whatever reason: politics, crimes ... kicks.... It is because the rights are considered so important, a foundation of the rule of Law and Justice, that they stand above the whims of any individual or State. Of course Exceptionalists have long and proudly boasted that the constitution and american rights are universal and world-inspiring, the whole "all Men equal" (not just americans) and endowed by Creator" (not by America). But in real world practice, the double standard between citizenship and non-citizen rights is clear; there's been little interest or effort in extending such fundamental values to non-americans. Even more so when American interests were at stake. So now, oh the irony, those "inalienable" rights are being stripped from american citizens themselves. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" At best, now, who deserves, quite literally, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" .. or death ... can be interpreted by Pentagon functionaries. At worse, empty and meaningless words ... hypocrisy come home to roost.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 2/8/2013 10:27:57 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Yes, blacked... if a person takes up arms against the US in an actual war -- they have given up their protection of citizenship. It was that way in the Civil War -- the rebels were never considered "Confederate citizens" by the Union -- they were American citizens rebelling against the U.S. government. It was that way in WW II when American citizens of German descent went back to the Fatherland to fight for Germany -- without renouncing their citizenship. If you put on the uniform of our enemy -- or accept a leadership post within their organization -- you are engaged in combat against the U.S. and are a fair target.

con	Posted - 2/8/2013 10:37:36 AM \| show profile \| flag this post the civil war analogy doesn't work with the points you are trying to make. mpdodgson represents liberal thinkeration quite well. all the pissing and moaning from the left over bush era terror policies was based not on principal beliefs- but politics. the dark side of using drones goes well beyond the leftwing fear of a republican president. this "collateral damage" you dismiss creates anti-americanism- something the reset button won't fix. other countries will soon use drones to target not just threats to their countries- also their political enemies. civil deaths and property damage be dammed. america will have no high ground in which to stand. failing to grasp the the details leads to naive thinking on the part of the left.

blackedtaped	Posted - 2/8/2013 10:45:38 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Well, etaoin Let's look at that a little more. Yes, certainly if someone has actually taken up arms and is engaged in military actions against the US then they are fair targets and have surrendered any rights as a citizen. On that I agree completely. But if their only action is conspiring against the government then I think that is a different matter altogether. We filled Guantanamo prison with foreigners charged with conspiring to carry our terrorist acts against the US, we have not yet taken them out and shot them. Certainly our citizens deserve the same rights as prisoners in Guantanamo.

con	Posted - 2/8/2013 10:47:25 AM \| show profile \| flag this post also, when understanding obama's drone policies, you will see policies that are not clearly definite- obama has wide latitude in determing who is killed without due process or trail.

etaoin shrdlu	Posted - 2/8/2013 10:59:25 AM \| show profile \| flag this post No, blacked... the people at Gitmo are not there because they "planned" an attack. Most are there because they were captured on the battlefield, following firefights in Afghanistan. Yes, if we capture an American, try him. But if he's part of the networked structure of a non-state actor -- he becomes a strategic target -- just as important as a fuel refinery or ball bearing plant in Germany in WW II. This country's military strategy has been strongly focused on taking out command and control since the Revolution. The Brits thought it was rude to target officers on the battlefield. But it's made perfect sense in every U.S. war since. If an American chooses to be a general in al Qaeda -- he's a fair target in combat.

blackedtaped	Posted - 2/8/2013 11:51:11 AM \| show profile \| flag this post etaoin... From the NY Times: "United States could target a citizen if he was a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda involved in plots against the country and if his capture was not feasible. " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/politics/obama-orders-release-of-drone-memos-to-lawmakers.html?pagewanted=2 If these truly are the guidlelines (and I have no reason to think otherwise) then I have no opposition. Under those specific circumstances I think a drone attack makes sense and is a valid measure.

mpdodgson	Posted - 2/8/2013 1:13:03 PM \| show profile \| flag this post (2 responses) cdn?? You're not alone in this by any means (Libs&Rightwingers have been doing it for generations) but quoting the whole "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of of Happiness", "Endowed by their Creator" stuff?? That's the Declaration. Not the Const. It's an awesome public "Statement" for lack of a better word. Great words to be sure, but it's NOT the LAW. That's the Const. So, "Like it or not ..." I'm not sure where you get off critisizing our country like that based on a false premise. con?? Is it asking too much that you actually try English once in a while?? "thinkeration"?? Really?? And here's an idea...try actual sentences instead of just random word vomit. "pissing and moaning from the left over bush era terror policies was based not on principal beliefs- but politics." OK, huh? What "bush era terror policies" are you talking about?? Invading a country for no good reason?? Doesn't targeting specific terrorists make more sense?? "other countries will soon use drones to target..." Yea. I'm really worried about N Korea sending drones to attack Iowa. And "obama has wide latitude in determing who is killed without due process or trail [sic]" Yes. He's supposed to have that kind of discretion. It's called being Commander In Chief. I was one of those who totally agreed with Bush going after BinLaden in Afghan--because he attacked us. Other actions, not so much. IMO, You have to take each potential/actual 'attack' one case at a time. 'Invading' Pakistan with two choppers to 'get' Bin Laden is one thing, sending thousands upon thousands of American troops into a buzzsaw for no good reason is something else altogether.