iH82BdatHERETIC...
New member
I would recommend the following article/videos on the subject. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/john-brennan-drones_n_2823583.html?utm_hp_ref=drones)
The vast majority of Americans traumatized by incidents such as the 9/11 attacks or the OKC bombing tend to forget, with the help of the media, that although collateral damage is a fact of war, it is just that: an incredibly costly aspect of war. Given that the authorization of Military Force has no geographical limits, according to Director Brennan (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...aul-says-cia-director-john-brennan-claimed-n/), it is an extremely depraved aspect of humanity that would ignore or endorse these attacks used in countries with no ties to these attacks, especially frequently killing civilians, even children, with no involvement. If AMERICANS were killed by drone strike (say in a hotel) in order to take out a "terrorist", we would not so quickly dismiss it as "collateral damage". Yet unconsciously, there already seems to be a determination in many of our minds on who's blood is real blood and who's blood isn't.
Specifically applying this to drones, the problem that arises is the immense amount of secrecy and un-accountability under the guise of "national security" which shrouds this program, which accepts the idea that a U.S. citizen can be assassinated extra-judicially, in the hands of a single executive. Trial does not necessarily require capture, the defendant can be given the opportunity for representation and still tried and convicted if they refuse. The involvement of the judicial itself as a balance might not be perfect, but is decisively to be preferred to the alternative. Drones ARE a useful tool, with the right oversight, in a defined battleground.
I would challenge anyone who claims to be "pro-life" to recognize that being "pro-life" isn't about abortion. It is recognizing the sacredness and value of life, no matter the circumstance or location.
The vast majority of Americans traumatized by incidents such as the 9/11 attacks or the OKC bombing tend to forget, with the help of the media, that although collateral damage is a fact of war, it is just that: an incredibly costly aspect of war. Given that the authorization of Military Force has no geographical limits, according to Director Brennan (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...aul-says-cia-director-john-brennan-claimed-n/), it is an extremely depraved aspect of humanity that would ignore or endorse these attacks used in countries with no ties to these attacks, especially frequently killing civilians, even children, with no involvement. If AMERICANS were killed by drone strike (say in a hotel) in order to take out a "terrorist", we would not so quickly dismiss it as "collateral damage". Yet unconsciously, there already seems to be a determination in many of our minds on who's blood is real blood and who's blood isn't.
Specifically applying this to drones, the problem that arises is the immense amount of secrecy and un-accountability under the guise of "national security" which shrouds this program, which accepts the idea that a U.S. citizen can be assassinated extra-judicially, in the hands of a single executive. Trial does not necessarily require capture, the defendant can be given the opportunity for representation and still tried and convicted if they refuse. The involvement of the judicial itself as a balance might not be perfect, but is decisively to be preferred to the alternative. Drones ARE a useful tool, with the right oversight, in a defined battleground.
I would challenge anyone who claims to be "pro-life" to recognize that being "pro-life" isn't about abortion. It is recognizing the sacredness and value of life, no matter the circumstance or location.