![]()
Earlier. The US Military used UAVs in World War Two, in Operation Aphrodite.
I was actually responding to Greenmantle, who said that UAVs had been used in Vietnam, "if not earlier", but you got in before me like a ninja.
edited 10th Feb '13 2:06:41 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiAnd the concern of extrajudicial killings authorized by the president, technically wouldn't that fall under his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and the job's vagueness (and how various presidents have executed that position of their office), allow them to make tactical decisions, including people who are presumed enemy combatants that need to be put on a priority hit list, essentially?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, people who have a better grasp on the military side of things here.
edited 10th Feb '13 3:19:00 AM by PotatoesRock
Not according to the Fifth Amendment, where it says that due process is the law of the land. If they're suspected terrorists, then let's give them a trial, as decreed by the law. As it stands, Samir Khan and Anwar al-Awlaki were not given trials for whatever crimes we think they've committed.
Barkley: And I'd wrestle the baton out of your hand.
More seriously, my reasoning for my opposition to drones - extrajudicial killings, signature strikes (we don't know who we're attacking) and double taps (ala, attacking first responders). I also don't how how we're attacking funeral mourners with drones as well. I'm not opposed to drones entirely, but I am opposed of how we're using them abroad. It's made me paranoid over what could happen with the drones we have at home, since we've already killed American citizens without trial or due process overseas (Abdulrahman al-Awlaki).
edited 10th Feb '13 6:59:59 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.So, did Abdulrahman al-Awlaki care about the due process and legal rights of people his scumbag followers had splattered over the landscape? Most of those, by the way, fellow Muslims?
Nope. Of course he didn't. Which is why he had a far closer encounter with a Hellfire missile than he bargained for.
This is war. And not one the west started. The handwringing in this thread is frankly pathetic.
We give due process to people WHEN POSSIBLE. If you've got a gunman in a clocktower who's sniping anyone who comes into view, you don't read him his rights. You shoot him. Now, you can argue that it would have been possible to apprehend those two people, but...I'm doubtful.
(I feel like I'm giving up some of my liberal cards)
@Barkley: Look. I don't always agree with the police. The NYPD are some of the most corrupt, authoritarian cops that I've heard of/met. However, if they're going to try to arrest me/break up a riot, I'm not going to fight back. You don't fight the cops and win. You shut up, go along, get a decent lawyer, and then either fight the police department (if they were completely out of ground arresting you), or the state (if you disagree with that law) in court.
Fight the police is pointless and stupid. It makes you look bad, and makes you automatically less sympathetic to anyone else. Furthermore, you're not going to accomplish anything, other heroically smashing your head into their baton, and getting a few extra charges.
I also can't think of a situation where a police drone would be more scary than a bunch of riot cops.
edited 10th Feb '13 7:44:53 AM by DrTentacles
To me it's not about the used weapons, but the results. If the result includes civilian collateral damage I'm against it. I'll support drones once you get them accurate enough to do your strikes with no collateral damage.
Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.
Against an enemy so deeply embedded amongst civilians, that hide amongst women and children, travel in regular vehicles and hide in crowds even while they strike, what weapons could you use against them that would satisfy you? They all have collateral damage.
edited 10th Feb '13 9:15:27 AM by betaalpha
@ Serocoo
Due process is for criminals and civilians, terrorists aren't that, they are enemy combats and military targets. Not criminals, military targets.
And Barkey would rightly kick your ass for trying that. I've been illegally held by the police (admittedly via kettleing, but same dif) and you don't fight them, mainly because you'll get your ass handed to you but also because 9 times out of 10 the copper you're swinging at isn't some evil git in it for the thrill of beating on innocent protesters, he's a dude with a family and a job who would much rather be at home watch TV.
Becomes
Do you see any actual difference between those two statements? Cus I don't.
Then why do you keep going on about them? You keep objecting to drones this and drones that, if your problem is with the foreign policy then go on about that, not about how drones are evil.
I'm pretty sure you guys killed a lot of Americans without trial or due process during the Civil War, I believe it was something to do with them being enemy combatants and no longer civilians, you know like how the terrorists are no longer civilians when they join an active military campaign of war against the US.
Dr Tentacles,
Tell me about it, we're arguing on the same side as Barkey!
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda chose to embed themselves in the civilian population. It is a tragedy when civilians are killed. It is also not entirely our fault. ISAF doesn't embed itself in the Afghan population, or deliberately place them in harm's way for political capital. Historically, the way to deal with guerillas was to Rape, Pillage, and Burn the supporting populace. In comparative terms, ISAF is waging a rather ethical counter-insurgency. Of course, there is room for improvement, there always is, but I can't see it right now.
Also, the Afghan militants' second or third in command
was about to get a Hellfire to the brainpan in 2011, but the CIA backed off for fear of civilian casualties.
edited 10th Feb '13 10:17:54 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiI really don't see the technological problem with drones. It is economical (in terms of converting old fighters in the cases of China or in the very use themselves of a much cheaper aircraft), safer for the pilot, and frankly not that much of a threat to conventional forces (both Pakistan and Yemen could easily shoot the drones down themselves should they really want to, but in both cases, they have given permission, even if its only behind the scenes on Pakistan's part).
I do have a problem with the legal use. Not in terms of war declaration (see aforementioned statement about permission), but using them on US citizens. Awlaki could have easily been tried in absentia and found guilty. Assassinating him, even if it was the easier/safer thing to do, undermines rule of law guarenteed to US citizens. That one instance is probably the only time I've disagreed with drone use outside of the moral and long term issue of collateral damage (which as others here have said MUST be improved, but also as others have said is much better than what has been the historical level of such damage).
As to the idea of drones in law enforcement, meh. Same as a police chopper. Point?
I'm looking at Wikipedia and there doesn’t appear to be anything easy about trying someone in absentia. I also question why these people are facing trials. There is a very clear argument for declaring them enemy combatants, and I'm pretty sure you don't put enemy combatants on trial, even if they are American citizens.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranU.S. courts arent allowed to try people in absentia; since the Sixth Amendment guarantees people the right to face their accusers in court, it's unconstitutional to start a trial without the accused being present.
edited 10th Feb '13 2:03:39 PM by RavenWilder
Tam H20: Scumbag followers? Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a 16 year old teenager born in the states. An actual American citizen. What, is he some Al Qaeda-sympathizing terrorist? No. He was looking for his father, Anwar. How dare you automatically assume a kid with that name is a terrorist without actually looking into it first.
We gave due process for the Nazis, Silasw. I don't see why we should do the same for guys like Anwar or Smair Khan, since last I checked, they weren't actual Al-Qaeda members.
I keep telling you - we keep attacking suspected
terrorists
. That means, men, women and children that have no connection with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but we're attacking them only because we think they're terrorists. If you've ever read the Disposition Matrix
, you'd know exactly why I feel like that.
edited 10th Feb '13 3:11:50 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.In other words, you're saying that attacks should only be launched against people that have evidence that could be proven without doubt in a Totally Open Court?
Keep Rolling On![]()
Similarly, yes. For example, I would've given Anwar a trial first, because as far as we know officially, he was only a propagandist. Not an operational leader. I want the courts to investigate the truth of the matter.
As for, say, Bashar al-Assad, I'd definitely consider using a drone to track and/or kill him.
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

They're like roaches. You'll see theme everywhere, but you can't get rid of them. And unlike humans, who are similarly everywhere, they can't die or feel pain.
And as an officer who's been in a riot, I'd clock you in the face with a baton, zip tie your hands, and cart you off somewhere for punching me. Cut the bullshit. Punching a police officer isn't going to accomplish anything more than if you could punch a drone, in fact, it won't achieve anything other than maybe making you feel better for a split second before you get the same treatment back at a higher level of intensity.
It doesn't fucking matter. Your steady examples of "Oh the other side needs to be able to fight back!" are fucking foolish. That isn't how these things work. An optimal situation for conflict resolution is one where your opposition can't fight back. Nobody here against drones in this thread has been able to make any optimal argument that doesn't essentially reek of that main point. Not one of the anti-drone crowd has given any reason why a drone with anti-riot equipment is somehow "worse" than police officers with riot equipment, or how a Predator with AGM's in Pakistan is somehow worse than an Apache with AGM's in Pakistan. The only real recourse I can think of is "I want the enemy to be able to fight back!"
Well guess what? I'm one of those riot officers, and those Apache pilots are people as well. Yes, collateral damage is an issue that severely needs to be worked on, but it sounds like you're basically trying to bank on the issues where drones are being used that you don't approve of being replaced with humans, so that there's a chance said humans can get killed and cause some sort of incident.
And as for anti-riot drones, come on, really? That's threatening? If I were a protestor I would be totes more afraid of that microwave cannon that they've started human trials of and LAPD is considering using in the county jails. That's got a human behind the trigger.
And the whole thing about "deterrence"? That's bullshit too, you can't deter other people from getting drones, just let we couldn't deter other people from getting nukes. All the first world nations have and use drones in some capacity, I highly doubt that us using drones in this manner is rocket science, and other countries using them in a similar manner is a foreign policy issue, not a Defense issue or a Technology issue. What is there to deter? China has reverse engineered copycat Predators with AGM's already. The cat is already way out of the bag.
What I'm essentially saying, is I want a logical reason that makes actual sense against Drones as a technology, and not the foreign policy itself of going into Pakistan.(of which there are many, and thus aren't really worth hashing out at this point, there are plenty of reasons not to blow people up in Pakistan, and plenty of reasons to do so)
But when it comes to Drones, I want the anti-drone crowd here to give me an answer that is not "I don't like them." "The enemy needs to be able to fight back." "Humans should be putting themselves at risk if they are harming others." "ERMAGERD SKYNET IS COMING!" and the ones I've already refuted, such as deterrence. I want someone to give me a valid, logical, common sense, unemotional answer that isn't a smokescreen for one of the above answers as to why we should use Apaches over drones, or riot officers over drones, or anything a drone could be used for because personally, I can think of plenty of tactical reasons to use other options that aren't drones in some cases, but none of them are a problem with the technology.
edited 10th Feb '13 1:09:54 AM by Barkey