toldailytopic: How do you feel about the government's use of drones?

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for March 11th, 2013 09:14 AM


toldailytopic: How do you feel about the government's use of drones?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
 

Uberpod1

BANNED
Banned
A drone is a weapon like many others. It can be misused and overused. Opportunities of gaining important intel literally can be blown away. Drones reduce casualities among our troops. I suspect this is one of the reasons Obama favors them. Drone use on native soil must first go through due process, with exceptions for emergent situations unfolding and risking imminent destruction of life and limb.
 

PureX

Well-known member
toldailytopic: How do you feel about the government's use of drones?
The fact that they are 'drones', and therefor do not carry a human pilot into danger is a full positive to my way of thinking. Besides that, it's just another missile delivery system. And it's small, stealthy, and relatively inexpensive compared to a manned fighter jet: so those are more aspects in it's favor.

The big controversy seems to be in relation to it's current use as a method of assassination, and particularly in the worry over it being used against U.S. citizens abroad and at home. But I think this is extremely unlikely to happen, except in the rare case of a citizen become traitor who is actively posing a threat to the people of the united States. Clearly, oversight will be required, but once these criteria are proven to an acceptable degree, I see no reason to afford such a traitor any special dispensation simply because he holds U.S. citizenship.

And as far as assassinating foreign enemies who pose an active threat against the people of the United States, I have no problem with that, either. And if the country in which they are hiding will not or cannot deal with these threats, themselves, then I think we should do so, ourselves. And I don't care whether they like it or not.

As to the use of such drones inside the U.S., I don't believe there would ever be a need for that, as any threat within our own borders could be eliminated without any need of such a weapon. So that simply isn't an issue.
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The drone attacks raise several issues--the targets are being killed capriciously without due process of law. Obama goes in a secret meeting to launch these things without consulting other government officials. They have been used on Americans abroad without due process. Traitors should be given Capital punishment after due process of law-not executed remotely by a drone. The use of drones has opened up another can of worms--using them on American soil.

The foundation of America's justice system is that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. This principle is found scripture:

Proverbs 18:17 - The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

Numbers 35:30 - Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty.
This is in agreement with
U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3.

There is also the issue of collateral damage done by the drone. The drone isn't a soldier. It cannot see that it is shooting innocent bystanders. It doesn't have a conscience to tell it to hold its fire until a bicyclist or a mother and baby gets out of the way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

not4sure

New member
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for March 11th, 2013 09:14 AM


toldailytopic: How do you feel about the government's use of drones?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Why not? They are smarter than Joe Biden and less dangerous than Michelle.
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
The drone attacks raise several issues--the targets are being killed capriciously without due process of law. Obama goes in the secret meeting to launch these things without consulting other government officials. They have been used on Americans abroad without due process. Traitors should be given Capital punishment after due process of law-not executed remotely by a drone. The use of drones has opened up another can of worms--using them on American soil.

The foundation of America's justice system is that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. This principle is found scripture:

Proverbs 18:17 - The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

Numbers 35:30 - Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty.
This is in agreement with
U.S. Constitution Article III, Section 3.

There is also the issue of collateral damage done by the drone. The drone isn't a soldier. It cannot see that it is shooting innocent bystanders. It doesn't have a conscience to tell it to hold its fire until a bicyclist or a mother and baby gets out of the way.

Well said Inzl, I agree with all you've said with an exception of the final paragraph.

The drone is being operated by a soldier and is being fed live videos in real time while the operation is in process, he is able to see the target area and the target (hopefully that soldier has a conscience) so if a positive I.D. has been made then he has the go ahead for the kill.

As far as collateral damage is concerned, unfortunately in war it will happen and all we can do is try to reduce it as much as humanly possible.
 

The Berean

Well-known member
Well said Inzl, I agree with all you've said with an exception of the final paragraph.

The drone is being operated by a soldier and is being fed live videos in real time while the operation is in process, he is able to see the target area and the target (hopefully that soldier has a conscience) so if a positive I.D. has been made then he has the go ahead for the kill.

As far as collateral damage is concerned, unfortunately in war it will happen and all we can do is try to reduce it as much as humanly possible.

This is an important point. The drones are not autonomous smart systems. At least not yet. But the US military is heading in that direction and it brings up ethical issues and concerns.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-09-19/national/35273383_1_drones-human-target-military-base


Are the "Hunter Killers" around the corner? :noid:

.
 

HisServant

New member
I think you will see a huge rise in 'jammers' that can be used to target the drones, which will then me sold to the terrorists in the middle east to use against us.

If it is computerized.. it can be hijacked (and one of the video feeds was hijacked not too long ago). Nothing would be more fitting for a drone to be used against the government that deployed it.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
How much "collateral damage" does a terrorist cause?

If all's justified in the name of this bogus, ridiculous "war on terror" we might as well drop the pretense, chuck the Constitution, and admit the powers that be can and will do whatever they want to.
 

PureX

Well-known member
The drone attacks raise several issues--the targets are being killed capriciously without due process of law.
There is no "due process" in time of war. There never was. The only difference is that we aren't at war with a specific nation, this time, we're at war with a group of individuals who hide in whatever nation they can.
Obama goes in the secret meeting to launch these things without consulting other government officials. They have been used on Americans abroad without due process. Traitors should be given Capital punishment after due process of law-not executed remotely by a drone.
This simply isn't realistic. Once a person becomes an enemy combatant, regardless of citizenship, there is no reasonable way of capturing and trying them.

Also, this isn't about Obama. Bush would have behaved the exact same way and the republicans would all be applauding him. Political partisanship has no credibility in this issue, if it has any at all, anymore.
The use of drones has opened up another can of worms--using them on American soil.
There is no practical reason or need to use them on U.S. soil. We can easily dispatch any enemy on our soil without having to resort to air-to-ground missiles. This is a complete non-issue.
The foundation of America's justice system is that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
This has never applied to enemy combatants in time of war. And it can't possibly be applied to such a circumstance.
There is also the issue of collateral damage done by the drone. The drone isn't a soldier. It cannot see that it is shooting innocent bystanders. It doesn't have a conscience to tell it to hold its fire until a bicyclist or a mother and baby gets out of the way.
Drones are controlled by soldiers who are just as capable of determining a threat via remote technology as they are in person. There is no reason to presume that collateral damage will be any greater using a drone than, say, a tank or a hand-held missile launcher.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Bottom line? Drones have been highly effective against terrorist leaders, who are pulling all the strings they have to get others to work against them.

The reason they want it to stop isn't to protect the innocent. It's to stop the ongoing destruction of their organization.
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
It's wrong to be blase about this "collateral damage."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/201...ics-drone-strikes-abroad-rand-paul-filibuster

We're killing an awful lot of people abroad with little oversight or accountability. But I guess we better get used to the idea of America killing whoever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. That's the new reality. And it's a depressing state of affairs.

No one that I've ever know that has been up close and personal with collateral damage has ever been blase with the aftermath, but as long as there a wars or conflicts being fought there will be collateral damage.

As far as the new reality (new?) of America killing whoever, whenever or wherever they want :idunno: we have been doing that since the inception of the country. We see something we don't like, we go shoot it. Depressing state of affairs? Sure, but its been going on for over 226 years so I don't think it will be changing in the near future.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
If all's justified in the name of this bogus, ridiculous "war on terror" we might as well drop the pretense, chuck the Constitution, and admit the powers that be can and will do whatever they want to.
If somebody were to, say, fly an airliner into a skyscraper, what should our response be?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
If somebody were to, say, fly an airliner into a skyscraper, what should our response be?

That's a completely separate issue from whether or not we have the right to unilaterally kill our supposed/alleged "enemies" wherever we happen to find them (or suspect them to be). If any given president can whack whoever he or she decides is an "enemy" at the moment we're completely bankrupt in every conceivable way. I'm very surprised to see you defending this kind of homicidal hubris.

@ Lightbringer: You're absolutely correct. This is unfortunately not a new phenomenon--we've just gotten more brazen, if such a thing were possible.
 

Sherman

I identify as a Christian
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There is no "due process" in time of war.
America is not at war with Pakistan, Yemen and Somali, and yet drone attacks are being launched in these countries and killing people. That is without due process.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
That's a completely separate issue from whether or not we have the right to unilaterally kill our supposed/alleged "enemies" wherever we happen to find them (or suspect them to be). If any given president can whack whoever he or she decides is an "enemy" at the moment we're completely bankrupt in every conceivable way. I'm very surprised to see you defending this kind of homicidal hubris.

@ Lightbringer: You're absolutely correct. This is unfortunately not a new phenomenon--we've just gotten more brazen, if such a thing were possible.
So far, I am not defending anything. I am simply exploring the limits of a form of warfare that our military is ill-prepared to fight. How do you fight an enemy that looks the same and is dressed the same as a friend? Is a "war on terror" a legitimate enough war where the US is justified to take out identified leaders of the enemy? If so, does this equally apply to the "war on drugs"?
 
Top