I've seen a few posts on Facebook and insinuations in the blogosphere (i'm bringing this term back) condemning the use of aerial drones.

But I don't really see the problem with using drones. The biggest issue is that it disembodies war, it makes killing easier and less personal.

But this is easily remedied. Drones prevents our own human lives lost, I'd assume the strikes are going to be more targeted resulting in less collateral damage, and they enhance intelligence gathering which further reduces collateral damage. When the technology matures too, it's generally more efficient to maintain a drone that replaces multiple soliders, which saves costs.

We're only going to see computer-controlled robots take over more roles of humans, in combat and elsewhere, i'm not sure that it makes sense to promote to use of humans when drones are available.

So... my question is, what's the big deal with drones? Why do people hate them? What do people expect us to do instead?

[Edited on May 31, 2012 at 11:02 PM. Reason : ]

5/31/2012 11:01:50 PM

I know there has been a lot of controversy lately about domestic use of drones. It definitely raises some privacy issues.

5/31/2012 11:09:09 PM

Drones are not targeted. Just wiki the amount of civilian deaths in Yemen.

And that's the conservative estimate. By labeling all "military-aged" men as militants, we've essentially redefined what "targeted killing" means.

Until you've adequately read up on Glenn Greenwald's blog, you really don't know what the hell is going on.


Besides, all military weapons used abroad will eventually come back and be used to expand the American surveillance state.

The only people who benefit from drone strikes are the companies who make drones. Period.

5/31/2012 11:27:01 PM

The issue of relabeling civilians is despicable, but is a separate issue from the drones.

And i'd bet that the civilian casualties nowadays are lower than with technologies in the past.

The ideal situation is for no war ever, but in the absence of this possibility, a technology that reduces this vs. previous technologies would be preferable wouldn't it?

Regarding domestic use, what can a drone do that a person in a helicopter can't do?

We're far more in danger of overly intrusive electronic surveillance than what a camera in the sky can see and gather. I also don't really see domestic use growing too much, just because the use cases are fairly small for local police. If it got to the point where cops are trying to use them to catch speeders or people not wearing seat belts, then i'd say legislative action is needed.

5/31/2012 11:42:39 PM

Fantastic article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rise-of-the-killer-drones-how-america-goes-to-war-in-secret-20120416

5/31/2012 11:45:03 PM

^ reading it now, but I keep seeing people bring this up:

Quote :

"Obama has unleashed 268 covert drone strikes, five times the total George W. Bush ordered during his eight years in office."

Why is this at all surprising? The technology was still fairly new under Bush, as it matures, OF COURSE we're going to see the usage expanded. This isn't Obama, this is just how technology is.

That's like saying the amount of hybrid vehicles has increased under Obama. This isn't due to Obama, this is because the technology is just improving and expanding...

5/31/2012 11:51:37 PM

does that also explain why Obama has indicted twice as many whistleblowers as all other presidents combined? Technology?


"If the Bush administration didn’t like somebody, they’d kidnap them and send them to torture chambers.

If the Obama administration decides they don’t like somebody, they murder them."

-- Noam Chomsky

6/1/2012 12:01:35 AM

your president drops drones and tells everyone that he's killing militants, even though that's factually incorrect. he's killed 3 American citizens, including a 16 year old from Denver. then he PERSONALLY calls foreign heads of state and asks them to imprison journalists who report these attacks. and he detains whistleblowers like bradley manning who expose these crimes.

and he does all of this with absolutely NO OVERSIGHT. no transparency, no due-process. He has actual death panels who meet in secret to create kill-lists. Jesus fucking christ, how bad does it need to get before you change your stance on the issue?

And on top of ALL OF THAT, it doesn't even fucking work. There are more than twice as many members of al Qeada in the Arabian Peninsula than there were when we started these drone attacks. Why? Probably because when we kill civilians, relatives and friends of the victims join the only group who want to resist our occupation.


just fucking admit it, already. you're president is a right-wing asshole. quit fucking trying to rationalize it.


[Edited on June 1, 2012 at 12:15 AM. Reason : ]

6/1/2012 12:06:57 AM

source on the calling head of states?

Our country has been dismissing the killing of civilians for decades, under the guise of war and terrorism.

Eliminating drones would do literally nothing to change this. We'd just drift back to regular planes and missiles, or some other unforeseen technology. Maybe space-based-rail guns might be the next eye in the sky we kill civilians in other countries with.

You'll never fix the problem by blaming the tool. You have to target your energies at the people that promote reckless militaristic behavior.

Afghanistan War: Civilian Deaths Fall 20 Percent, UN Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/afghanistan-war-civilian-deaths_n_1508447.html

6/1/2012 12:20:36 AM

Quote :

"And i'd bet that the civilian casualties nowadays are lower than with technologies in the past."

You'd bet wrong. Seriously, the CIA can now drop drones without even knowing who they are targeting. That's not hyperbole. They're just dropping bombs willy nilly.

Quote :

"Regarding domestic use, what can a drone do that a person in a helicopter can't do?"

Pepper spray, probably. Or kill me. Catch me speeding. Or take pictures of me jerking off. It doesn't fucking matter, does it?

Quote :

"I also don't really see domestic use growing too much, just because the use cases are fairly small for local police."

What do you think they do with the drones once we end all these wars? Think they just put them on the shelves to collect dust? No, they get pushed down to the local level. Homeland Security provides local police with all kinds of goodies.

6/1/2012 12:23:55 AM

Quote :

"What do you think they do with the drones once we end all these wars? Think they just put them on the shelves to collect dust?"

lol

we'll never end these wars.

Quote :

"Pepper spray, probably. Or kill me. Catch me speeding. Or take pictures of me jerking off. It doesn't fucking matter, does it? "

people in helicopters can do all of these things. we already use copters (and planes and radar etc) to catch people speeding.



[Edited on June 1, 2012 at 12:28 AM. Reason : ]

6/1/2012 12:27:01 AM

Quote :

"source on the calling head of states?"

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_journalists_imprisonment/

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/journalists_casualties_in_the_war_on_whistleblowers/

Quote :

"You'll never fix the problem by blaming the tool."

I'm sure I can make toast with an electric chair. But that's not what it was fucking designed for.

6/1/2012 12:27:45 AM

Quote :

" then he PERSONALLY calls foreign heads of state and asks them to imprison journalists who report these attacks"

I read the article, and while what described is an atrocity if true, it wasn't the president personally calling for a foreign journalist to be locked up.

At worst, it was the president personally calling for a foreign journalist to remain locked up, and at best, it's the president asking for an al qaeda operative to remain imprisoned.

I'm not disputing that the machinery of the war on terror is corrupt. That we kill way too many civilians, and that our military over-reaction to 9/11 has likely created far more terrorists that we could ever hope to stop. We've pushed the Iranians towards extremism, etc.,etc..

But i don't see how drones are responsible for this, have catalyzed or fomented it, or how reducing or eliminating drones would end this.

When we invaded Iraq, which had no real ties to 9/11, which had no real WMDs, people were saying, rightly, this would create more terrorists than anything. This is true. Killing civilians, by drones or otherwise, has the same effect. But we've been killing civilians with or without drones since we've had a military. There aren't clear statistics, but it does appear that collateral damage has been reduced in gross terms with the usage of drones.

It seems to me like harping on the drones themselves distracts from the real issues with our foreign policies.

The military is always going to pursue advanced technologies, especially technologies that take people out of the line of fire.

I don't see how it makes sense for us to 1) stop pursuing these technologies 2) promote methodologies that puts more people physically on the battlefield.

6/1/2012 12:40:32 AM

is it impossible for you to realize that the pursuit of war technology enables war culture?

Quote :

"There aren't clear statistics, but it does appear that collateral damage has been reduced in gross terms with the usage of drones."

stop saying this. this is not true. go to yemen and hang out for a week. let me know how that goes for you.

6/1/2012 12:49:41 AM

Quote :

"Regarding domestic use, what can a drone do that a person in a helicopter can't do?"

What expectations of privacy do you have in your fenced in backyard?

Drones are being developed that can stay aloft for days, weeks, and months. A person in a helicopter can't do that. While drones may not currently be able to do more than a human, they do have the potential to vastly increase the pervasiveness of domestic surveillance.

This has already happened with GPS. The government has used GPS to track vehicles for months without a warrant, using the justification that GPS isn't doing anything an officer in a car can't do. The city of Raleigh uses cameras to record and track license plates around town. While the technologies may not do anything a human can't do, the automation allows a pervasiveness that far exceeds reasonable expectations of privacy, and gives the government a significantly more detailed view of its citizens than is possible using solely meat-space based means.

One lesson to learn from the emergence of the Internet is that we should not fixate on what technologies can do now, but consider what technologies may do and how they may be (ab)used in the future.

6/1/2012 2:54:31 AM

Quote :

"What do people expect us to do instead?"

stop killing people in the middle east, or anywhere else for that matter

6/1/2012 4:01:03 AM

Every time a drone crashes or is shot down, slit the throat of a random Senator's child.

[Edited on June 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

6/1/2012 12:35:57 PM

6/1/2012 1:02:05 PM

Quote :

"Drones are being developed that can stay aloft for days, weeks, and months. A person in a helicopter can't do that. While drones may not currently be able to do more than a human, they do have the potential to vastly increase the pervasiveness of domestic surveillance. This has already happened with GPS. The government has used GPS to track vehicles for months without a warrant, using the justification that GPS isn't doing anything an officer in a car can't do. The city of Raleigh uses cameras to record and track license plates around town. While the technologies may not do anything a human can't do, the automation allows a pervasiveness that far exceeds reasonable expectations of privacy, and gives the government a significantly more detailed view of its citizens than is possible using solely meat-space based means."

These strike me as policy issues, ot technology issues. It doesn't make sense to me to thwart the usage of technology or tools that makes our lives easier just because a tool can be abused. Any new tool has new rules, we need to push for implementing and enforcing these rules, not resisting new tools.

Drones could make things better if used correctly, and not for ramped up in discriminate killing. Drones could be used domestically to find lost children or track stolen cars, or to follow criminals after a crime is reported, etc.

But just because a drone could also be used for long term mass surveillance doesn't mean we shouldnt have drones.

It's not a problem with drones that people should have, it's the policies that haven't advanced as quickly as the technology.

6/3/2012 1:14:10 PM

Quote :

"But I don't really see the problem with using drones. The biggest issue is that it disembodies war, it makes killing easier and less personal."

See: every new military weapon. Ever.

I think we were probably at the peak of personal war with knives. There's just nothing like feeling the warmth and stink of your enemies intestines as you disembody him alive. The screams, the flailing, not a detail missed. Well I don't know, I guess it might have been more personal with the good old tearing off his flesh with your own teeth and a jagged branch. That was obviously more personal than drones and more difficult to boot! What's the reason we don't go back to those tactics?

6/3/2012 2:18:46 PM

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414704/may-31-2012/the-word---two-birds-with-one-drone

6/3/2012 3:30:48 PM

^^^ I completely agree. Not only should policy advance with technology, policy should be written in a conceptual, value-based, technology-agnostic manner to the great extent possible.

Unfortunately, policy is not written that way and our government shows no inclination to interpret existing laws in technology neutral terms. Should IP-based phones be subject to the same wiretapping laws as conventional land lines? Should email be treated the same as snail mail? The government doesn't think so.

Policy solutions would be wonderful, but such policies don't exist. The government has demonstrated repeatedly that it will exploit technology to the detriment of our rights, all while hiding from public and judicial review under the guise of state-secrets.

I'm a Luddite when it comes to technology and government surveillance, and it has nothing to do with the technology.

6/3/2012 3:46:01 PM

Quote :

"The biggest issue is that it disembodies war, it makes killing easier and less personal.""

sounds like it makes it better for our troops... perhaps reducing PTSD and other mental problems that war brings about.

6/3/2012 7:01:46 PM

^actually, some in some instances drones actually enable ptsd because the operator has to "follow" the target for days on end, essentially getting to know the target on a personal level, which makes the actual kill more traumatic.

not all drones are the giant planes in the sky. some are the ones that can hover over a person's home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyJoJUs14bc

6/3/2012 8:29:17 PM

we're killing civilians.


and it really pisses me off that self proclaimed "progressives" now embrace this tactic and try to rationalize that it is somehow precise and effective. it doesn't matter how many times you post diagrams of war technology finding its way into your new iphone, our drone policy is a horrific leg of our expanding military apparatus that is waging war and occupying multiple nations that we're not even at war with.

Quote :

"The Obama policy of attacking rescuers and grieving rituals continues this weekend in Pakistan... ...The U.S. has been continuously killing people in the Muslim world for close to a full decade now. The amount of gullibility it takes to believe that the U.S. is merely killing “Terrorists” — over and over and over and over — is just staggering (and for those who do believe that there are so many Terrorists trying to attack the U.S. even after a decade of supposedly killing them over and over, you might ask yourself: why are there so many people so eager to attack the U.S.?)"

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/04/obama_again_bombs_mourners/singleton/

Quote :

"To reopen the roads Islamabad wants an apology and an end to drone strikes but the US president, Barack Obama, is taking a hardline stand."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/04/15-dead-drone-pakistan

Quote :

"He was once a liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war. Now, according to revelations last week, the US president personally oversees a 'kill list' for drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. Then there's the CIA renditions, increased surveillance and a crackdown on whistleblowers. No wonder Washington insiders are likening him to 'George W Bush on steroids'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/drone-wars-secrecy-barack-obama


[Edited on June 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM. Reason : ]

6/4/2012 12:57:02 PM

NASA sends drones to monitor hurricanes??

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/63814-nasa-sends-drones-to-monitor-hurricanes


^ I don't think anyone is justifying or rationalizing the killing of civilians. We've been killing civilians, in more egregious ways, before drones. At least a drone can't rape the civilians too. The problem though isn't with drones, it's with war. You're barking up the wrong tree, and hurting the anti-war cause, by blaming the drones.

6/4/2012 6:11:03 PM

you get no intellectual credit for divorcing the technology with the act of war.

the continued support of war driven technological advancements is a sad state for a supposed progressive to find himself in.

this "don't blame the tool" argument is incredibly stupid. The tool was designed for the slaughter of human life 1st, the surveillance and invasion of privacy 2nd, and the "monitoring of hurricanes" 834th. The pursuit of warfare technology absolutely is a moral argument. How many muslims should be killed so that you may someday be able to track Hurricane Whogivesashit on your iPad?

the tool and the warfare are intrinsically locked with one another, and no matter how moist the technology makes you, your continued support of "trickle down" warfare technology does not make you a fucking pacifist.

6/4/2012 6:39:46 PM

Quote :

" I don't think anyone is justifying or rationalizing the killing of civilians."

You are, actually. Pretty brazenly, at that.


"At least we'll get some cool new toys after we've successfully converted an entire new generation of Muslims into militants hell-bent on exacting revenge against American's. Yippeeee"



"We're gonna kill them anyway, at least this way we won't rape them. They're still gonna die and be horribly mutilated, but they'll die with some self respect. Alriiiiiigggght."

6/4/2012 6:54:19 PM

Quote :

"the tool and the warfare are intrinsically locked with one another, and no matter how moist the technology makes you, your continued support of "trickle down" warfare technology does not make you a fucking pacifist."

What about the airplane? Here we have a tool that was not invented to inflict violence -- in fact, at least one of the Wright brothers thought it would end war -- but which has been used to inflict unimaginable carnage many, many times. Most of the major innovations in flight were born directly from military requirements. Even unarmed civilian aircraft have been used to cause atrocities.

So what is the acceptable level of support for the airplane, which is a tool that is clearly "intrinsically locked" with warfare? A tool which is, moreover, largely indistinguishable from an airplane except when it comes to controls and operator safety?

Quote :

"The tool was designed for the slaughter of human life 1st, the surveillance and invasion of privacy 2nd, and the "monitoring of hurricanes" 834th. "

This is just factually wrong. The Predator, grandaddy of all our current drones, was an unarmed surveillance craft for some time before somebody had the idea to put a missile on it.

Quote :

"we're killing civilians."

Yep. I don't like that fact. But I like it more than I do the idea of an al Qaeda affiliate getting a free hand to set up and plan attacks. In an ideal world, they would have some basic respect for civilian life and wouldn't try to hide among it. It's not an ideal world, terrorists hang out in population centers, and civilians get killed.

Of course, that leaves open the excellent question of whether the level of civilian deaths outweighs the damage that drones do to terrorist organizations. That's a perfectly reasonable question. The pity is that you're not asking it, you're just raving about a (largely imagined) administration that is bombing everybody and then locking up whistle blowers.

6/4/2012 8:06:24 PM

the airplane is the perfect example for you free-market loving conservatives to shun warfare advancements.


two dudes came up with an idea, thought it through, made it, and changed history without needing to blow shit up in the process.

Quote :

"This is just factually wrong. The Predator, grandaddy of all our current drones, was an unarmed surveillance craft for some time before somebody had the idea to put a missile on it."

fine. reverse the order: 1) surveillance, 2)slaughter. the point still stands.

Quote :

" In an ideal world, they would have some basic respect for civilian life and wouldn't try to hide among it"

hahaha. shut the fuck up, dude. we absolutely do not get to charge them for "disregarding civilian life" when that's EXACTLY what we are doing by bombing mourners at funerals. this is well documented now, as is the current administrations desire to lock up whistleblowers at an alarming rate. if you want to conveniently ignore those verifiable, reported facts, then by all means, go ahead.

Quote :

"Of course, that leaves open the excellent question of whether the level of civilian deaths outweighs the damage that drones do to terrorist organizations. That's a perfectly reasonable question. The pity is that you're not asking it"

what the fuck do you think I was getting at when I said, "The pursuit of warfare technology absolutely is a moral argument. How many muslims should be killed so that you may someday be able to track Hurricane Whogivesashit on your iPad?" I was arguing with moron who seems to think the technological benefits somehow offset the advancement of the us war machine and his refusal to accept that the two enable one another. I'm not even going to bother addressing the "damage done to al Qeida" argument, because if you would read further up the page, you'd see that the number of al Qeida in the Arabian Peninsula has doubled since the start of our drone campaign.

Quote :

"you're just raving about a (largely imagined) administration that is bombing everybody and then locking up whistle blowers"

don't sit there and charge me of raving about "imagined" abuses of power when they are very clearly, demonstrably, factually true.

smugly dismissing someone else's argument that is backed by reported facts from multiple, reliable outlets doesn't make you a reasoned, rational, realist. It just means your too proud to correct your ignorance when presented with evidence that contradicts your viewpoint.




[Edited on June 4, 2012 at 8:36 PM. Reason : ]

6/4/2012 8:17:05 PM

Quote :

"The tool was designed for the slaughter of human life 1st, the surveillance and invasion of privacy 2nd, and the "monitoring of hurricanes" 834th. "

I'd argue that most tools were designed 1st for the protection of human life. Namely the life of the person wielding the tool.

6/4/2012 8:25:03 PM

Quote :

"two dudes came up with an idea, thought it through, made it, and changed history without needing to blow shit up in the process."

So the fact that the technology ended up completely married to the military and ended up inflicting more death, destruction, and tragedy than any other in history...that's fine, as long as they inventor never thought, "Hmm, I bet the army would like one of these?"

And clearly you're not thinking your argument through very well. The Wright Bros. thought the plane would end warfare -- because it would provide such perfect surveillance. So even they built the airplane first and foremost for "the surveillance and invasion of privacy."

Quote :

"we absolutely do not get to charge them for "disregarding civilian life" when that's EXACTLY what we are doing by bombing mourners at funerals."

Even disregarding the extent to which you're inflating our targeting of civilians -- this "logic" is terrible. Being guilty of the same crime may make us asshole, but it doesn't make us incapable of recognize crime in others.

Quote :

"as is the current administrations desire to lock up whistleblowers at an alarming rate."

Here's where I'm confused. In the past 48 hours I have heard a detailed and scathing report on the subject of drones. In it a foreign journalist (from the BBC) flat-out accused the CIA of lying about the number of civilians it had killed and excoriated the American press for not reporting more about it. The American host of the show echoed these views and also indicted the drones for killing people, the CIA for not disclosing it, and the press for not being up in arms. This went on for ten, fifteen minutes. And the government has not arrested or moved to detain either of them. In fact, it's helped to pay their salaries: I heard the story on National Public Radio.

So help me out here. I'm trying to reconcile the fact that these "whistleblowers" are funded by the government with your claim that the same government strives to imprison whistleblowers. A position, incidentally, that you seem to have pieced together from some dubious extrapolations of stories that don't necessarily point in even remotely the same direction as your fantasies.

Quote :

"what the fuck do you think I was getting at when I said, "The pursuit of warfare technology absolutely is a moral argument. How many muslims should be killed so that you may someday be able to track Hurricane Whogivesashit on your iPad?""

Nothing even a little bit like the question I suggested, which in broad strokes weighed "civilians killed by drones" against "terrorists stopped by drones." This as opposed to your question, which weighs "Muslim lives" against "iPad apps," which is spurious and disingenuous as hell.

[Edited on June 4, 2012 at 8:37 PM. Reason : ]

6/4/2012 8:34:41 PM

Quote :

"Even disregarding the extent to which you're inflating our targeting of civilians"

prove this, please. This ain't florida. The burden of proof doesn't rest with the dead person to posthumously prove their innocence. Oh wait, yes it does, because that's exactly what this president's department of justice has declared.

Quote :

"So help me out here. I'm trying to reconcile the fact that these "whistleblowers" are funded by the government with your claim that the same government strives to imprison whistleblowers. A position, incidentally, that you seem to have pieced together from some dubious extrapolations of stories that don't necessarily point in even remotely the same direction as your fantasies."

Obama has indicted more people than all other administrations combined under the espionage act.

That is a fact that you can google your own goddamn self.

[Edited on June 4, 2012 at 8:43 PM. Reason : ]

6/4/2012 8:40:37 PM

grumps, you seem like a good people.

but this really feels like a situation where you (and moron, really) are unwilling to challenge your preconceptions because doing so would make you uncomfortable.

if there is any number that is being "inflated," it is most certainly the number of reported "MILITANTS." The administration admits to rewording the verbiage of "militant" to better help their political narrative, which is nothing short of propaganda.

I'm not really interested in the technology =/= military argument, because in this instance, the technology is most certainly being used to further an imperialist agenda, which is definitely a moral dilemma and should be opposed by anyone who wants to see an end to this decade long war.

6/4/2012 9:02:07 PM

Quote :

"The burden of proof doesn't rest with the dead person to posthumously prove their innocence."

This opens a great big can of worms that might be better suited for another thread -- the argument about where an operation ceases to be military in nature and starts being a police action being the critical question for your point, but which falls completely outside of the OP's question. Which is, as I understand it, "Why are people more upset about drone attacks than conventional military operations?" Saying, "No actions are justified" doesn't really answer that question.

I was more generally referring to the fact that reports on casualties are really unreliable. The tendency of some groups (civilians in the area, people who sympathize with the terrorists or simply don't like the US) is to inflate the numbers, sometimes wildly. The tendency of other groups is to deflate them. Since the most reliable and unbiased evidence moron or I can find at the moment indicates a decline in civilian casualties, and since you seem unwilling to even consider that notion, I'm accusing you of inflating things.

Quote :

"Obama has indicted more people than all other administrations combined under the espionage act."

That may be true, though I've got some problems with the statement:

1) Again, not really relevant to the discussion outlined in this thread.
2) Intentionally misleading, as it implies a high number of indictments. (My goddamn self googled it and found the atrocious total of...six people indicted)
3) It tells us nothing important. You have not demonstrated -- really even claimed -- that any of the people indicted under the espionage act were not, in fact, guilty of violating it. And before you say it, certainly the burden of proof isn't on them to prove their innocence -- so let's reiterate that they've been indicted rather than convicted or hanged or anything.

Quote :

"I'm not really interested in the technology =/= military argument, because in this instance, the technology is most certainly being used to further an imperialist agenda"

Drones are a terrible weapon from an imperialist perspective. They don't let you seize territory or resources. Also we're using them mainly in places we don't control or even want to control. And for a person who isn't interested in a certain argument, you definitely participated in it for quite a while (possibly until it was shot to pieces).

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 12:08 AM. Reason : ]

6/5/2012 12:07:59 AM

Quote :

"Why are people more upset about drone attacks than conventional military operations?"

because it continues our wars and re-brands them as something other than it really is: continued war in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that its being carried out by civilian agency. The CIA gives the president a list of names to target, and kill, with no oversight, no transparency, and no due-process for the Americans (3 so far, including a 16 year old militant child from Denver) who have been on that list. If we can be at war without actually being at war, where does this road take us?

Quote :

"The tendency of some groups (civilians in the area, people who sympathize with the terrorists or simply don't like the US) is to inflate the numbers, sometimes wildly."

Aside from this jingoistic view of things, let's at least consider that the manipulation of the term "militant" allows for a white-washing of the facts on the ground. If -- LITERALLY -- all men of military age (just think for a moment how young that might be) are classified as militant, then don't you think that might explain why you're finding numbers that suggest a high degree of precision? Isn't it quite convenient that the terminology is never scrutinized? Honestly, how precise do you think these things are? Isn't that what this argument "technology" argument hinges on? Precision? Do you think a plane a thousand feet away has the technological precision to avoid killing women and children and only taking out known terrorists? C'mon, man, get real.

Quote :

" Year--#Attacks---min# Killed---max# killed 2004-----1------------4-----------5 2005-----2------------6-----------7 2006-----2------------23----------23 2007-----4------------56----------77 2008-----33-----------274---------314 2009-----53-----------369---------725 2010-----118----------607---------993 2011-----70-----------378---------536 2012-----19-----------102---------128 Total--302---------1,819-------2,808 Total reported killed: 2,464 - 3,145 Civilians reported killed: 484 - 830 Children reported killed: 175 Total reported injured: 1,181-1,294 Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52 Strikes under the Obama Administration: 275 Total strikes: 327"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

So about 20%-30% of our attacks are killing civilians in Pakistan. Awesome. How precise.



Or what about the fact that we are actively denying foreign countries their sovereignty by occupying their territory with our drones? Are we at war with Pakistan? Are we at war with Yemen? Officially, no, but our drones are occupying their countries and killing their citizens. What other name would you possibly give this action other than war?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-QrPGgvC0

Quote :

"Ten more people have been killed by a US drone strike against suspected militants in Pakistan, with the aircraft firing its missiles into a gathering mourning one of two fighters killed in a similar atttack the previous day."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/03/american-drones-kill-12-pakistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/04/15-dead-drone-pakistan

We kill one "suspected militant" and then kill anyone who shows up to mourn. This double-tap was a technique first started by Hamas, for anyone interested.





Now to the second half of your post:

Quote :

"My goddamn self googled it and found the atrocious total of...six people indicted"

If you can't put 2 and 2 together and understand that these six indictments are a clear message to government insiders to not leak negative information for fear of getting Bradley Manning style punishment, then I don't know what to tell you. By the way, last I heard, Julian Assange is being extradited to Sweden. Think he'll find his way over to America and being lucky number 7 on that list? What kind of message do you think that will send? Practice journalism and expose state misconduct, and pay the price. All the while, the Obama administration will likely endorse a documentary about the Osama Bin Laden raid that will be filled with classified secrets that portray Obama as a tough as nails warrior who makes tough decisions under pressure. Alrrriiiight.

Quote :

"so let's reiterate that they've been indicted rather than convicted or hanged or anything."

This distinction is irrelevant. Bradley Manning has been indefinitely detained since mid 2010. John Kirikauo was arrested for discussing our torture methods.

If the punishment of whistleblowers, in combination with the current administrations desire to wage acts of war with no oversight or transparency don't strike you as authoritarian...then I don't know what the fuck to tell you.

And by the way, when I speak of imperialism, I'm not alluding to some ancient empire, where dudes in funny hats go around choppin' heads and stealing resources to deliver to the king.

6/5/2012 1:16:52 PM

Quote :

"because it continues our wars and re-brands them as something other than it really is: continued war in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan. "

Any number of things could be said to "continue our wars," including conventional military actions. So I don't think that's it for most people (though apparently it is for you).

Quote :

"no due-process for the Americans (3 so far, including a 16 year old militant child from Denver) who have been on that list. If we can be at war without actually being at war, where does this road take us?"

From a legal and historical perspective, nowhere terribly frightening. At least not in this country. The US wasn't officially at war against the CSA (you'd have to recognize them as a country before you could declare war on them), and union troops shot a shit-ton of Americans without due process because they were confederates and they had guns, too. You wouldn't suggest that the US was obligated to arrest and try every Confederate soldier it found, right?

To be clear, I'm not claiming that the Americans killed so far are morally or legally equivalent to uniformed CSA soldiers. But clearly the issue is less cut and dry than you're portraying it as, and again I think it all boils down to the larger issue of whether combating terrorism is a military or a police action.

And as for the kid being 16, I don't give a flying fuck. The question is, was the fucker an enemy? If he was just a teenager in the wrong place at the wrong time, we fucked up. If he was helping uncle Muhammad plan a bombing, then he can get vaporized for all I care.

Quote :

"So about 20%-30% of our attacks are killing civilians in Pakistan. Awesome. How precise."

This is high, but probably an improvement on conventional airstrikes.

Quote :

"Are we at war with Pakistan? Are we at war with Yemen? Officially, no, but our drones are occupying their countries and killing their citizens. What other name would you possibly give this action other than war?"

Last I heard the Yemeni government had invited us to do our drone thing. As for Pakistan, most of our actions take place in an area where their government doesn't have sovereignty. They've nominally been assigned the territory, but they no more control it than I do Chatham County. I could go into Chatham County and raise some hell, maybe shoot a few people, but you'd hardly say I had sovereignty over it.

That said, I'll admit the Pakistani situation is much more complicated -- both because of the sovereignty issue and because the Pakistani government doesn't appear to operate as one entity. Different factions are pursuing very different goals, so on the one hand you've got Pak forces fighting Taliban but on the other you've got someone (probably ISI or the military) setting up Osama bin Laden right there in plain sight.

Quote :

"If you can't put 2 and 2 together and understand that these six indictments are a clear message to government insiders to not leak negative classified information"

Fixed that for you. If you're in the government and you leak classified documents, you're committing a crime. A crime that has been established and on the books for a long time. It's not like Obama invented it as an excuse to lock up troublemakers, and it's not like troublemakers had any reason to believe they wouldn't be prosecuted.

Quote :

"This distinction is irrelevant. Bradley Manning has been indefinitely detained since mid 2010. John Kirikauo was arrested for discussing our torture methods."

Bradley Manning was aware of the UCMJ and the differences between it and the civilian legal system. Otherwise, if you won't acknowledge a distinction between "indicted," "convicted," and "hanged," there's really no point in discussing this.

Quote :

"And by the way, when I speak of imperialism, I'm not alluding to some ancient empire, where dudes in funny hats go around choppin' heads and stealing resources to deliver to the king."

Imperialism always, by its very nature, involves trying to take over land, resources, or markets. Drone attacks get us none of these.

6/5/2012 5:44:46 PM

nobody mentioned a US drone today killed Al Qaeda's 2nd in command Abu Yahya al-Libi

6/5/2012 6:51:15 PM

Score another one for the good guys

Quote :

"Until you've adequately read up on Glenn Greenwald's blog, you really don't know what the hell is going on."

This is pretty LOL-worthy. You need to stop listening to hacks like Greenwald.

[Edited on June 5, 2012 at 7:13 PM. Reason : 2]

6/5/2012 7:12:08 PM

What makes Glenn Greenwald LOL-worthy?

6/5/2012 8:42:23 PM

Quote :

"Fixed that for you. If you're in the government and you leak classified documents, you're committing a crime. A crime that has been established and on the books for a long time."

Unless you're leaking that information in order to make a movie glorifying the president:

Quote :

"The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/Dowd--The-Downgrade-Blues.html?_r=2



So which is it?

6/5/2012 9:26:08 PM

To the best of my knowledge, the President is permitted to reveal things, since ultimately it's the administrative branch that's in charge of classification levels. It's lame that he's doing so for purposes of a propaganda film, but it's not illegal.

Bradley Manning and Barack Obama have different jobs, clearances, and authorities under the law. One of them can make certain things public if he so chooses. The other cannot. I'll fault the President for throwing insider info at a movie to get him re-elected, not for arresting people who committed crimes.

6/5/2012 10:28:07 PM

Quote :

"the tool and the warfare are intrinsically locked with one another, and no matter how moist the technology makes you, your continued support of "trickle down" warfare technology does not make you a fucking pacifist. "

How are they intrinsically linked?

If you waved a magic wand and eliminated all drones on the planet, it'd take a week for us to get back to killing civilians at the same or greater rate than without the drones.

If the government were to stop using drones it would be AT BEST a fleeting stop gap at the myriad of underlying issues you're upset about.

6/5/2012 10:57:07 PM

Size Matters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154721/The-Phantom-Eye-New-drone-completes-test-flight-lands-bump.html

The Phantom Eye: Huge new drone with 150-foot wingspan which is designed to stay airborne for four days completes its first test flight (but lands with a bump)

6/5/2012 11:46:06 PM

The only problem with Phantom Eye is that right now, it doesn't have any customers. Boeing built that purely on its own dime (ie. no government monies involved), but so far, no one has come forward with buying one.

Quick thought on the overall argument:

Whatever you may argue, drones are definitely making it much, much easier for the White House to pull the trigger, whether or not you agree that what's being shot at are legitimate targets. There is no way the government would be this liberal with traditional manned airstrikes. Top it that this is the equivalent of the CIA having their own air force, giving them the ability to kill people, legitimate targets or otherwise, with a freedom and expediency it never had before. That is a legitimate criticism of drones, and something that people really need to think carefully about given the long term consequences.

The argument about whether drones are a civilian or military technology is an extension of the debate on the entire aerospace industry. On one hand, there are many legitimate uses of aerospace technologies in daily life from commercial transport to recreation. However, the industry as a whole is still intrinsically linked to the defense/military because the cost and complexity of the technology leaves few customers that can afford it, such as militaries.

6/6/2012 1:44:09 AM

Quote :

"such as militaries."

And of course on everybody else's dime.

6/6/2012 9:33:26 AM

Quote :

"Top it that this is the equivalent of the CIA having their own air force, giving them the ability to kill people, legitimate targets or otherwise, with a freedom and expediency it never had before. That is a legitimate criticism of drones, and something that people really need to think carefully about given the long term consequences."

Apparently not. I guess, now that we have a Democratic administration, all independent thought from progressives goes out the door. Can't criticize Obama, cuz he's a Democrat!

It's sad what the Democratic party has become.



Obama's greatest legacy will not be of him rising as some sort of transformative figure. It'll be that he took issues that were considered "extreme" and "far right" from the previous administration, and cemented them as normal and gave them bi-partisan consensus. His administration has re-calibrated the political landscape and turned the idea of constant warfare and civil liberty abuses as the new centrist position.

[Edited on June 6, 2012 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2012 3:00:27 PM

Quote :

"To the best of my knowledge, the President is permitted to reveal things, since ultimately it's the administrative branch that's in charge of classification levels. It's lame that he's doing so for purposes of a propaganda film, but it's not illegal."

Then what's the point of classifying information in the first place?

Surely, you see how this selective prosecution lends itself to abuse, no? Why not classify everything if you can decide later on that some things are worth punishing (i.e. leaks that illuminate government misconduct) and some things are not (i.e. leaks that glorify the president).

Honestly, this should register much higher than "lame" on your odometer. I'd put the needle somewhere between "concerning" and "man, this is some bullshit."

6/6/2012 4:07:44 PM

Quote :

"and he detains whistleblowers like bradley manning who expose these crimes."

you immediately lose the argument when you try and claim that bradley manning was a whistleblower.

as for whats wrong with drones, what isn't wrong with them? Obama is using drones to kill people because he doesn't have the political backbone to try and capture the operatives and then put them in Gitmo. We are losing valuable intel by doing this. Moreover, it comes with the heavy collateral damage of civilian casualties. Dehumanizing our attack vector only serves to further dehumanize us in the eyes of the civilians on the ground, as well. it's hard to win the "hearts and minds" when the people are convinced that we don't have hearts and minds ourselves.

Quote :

"Regarding domestic use, what can a drone do that a person in a helicopter can't do?"

allow its pilot to operate in far more dangerous territory with little to no risk to himself, ergo, be braver and do worse shit.

Quote :

"I also don't really see domestic use growing too much, just because the use cases are fairly small for local police."

The police haven't dreamed up uses because they haven't had access to them. Give them access, and they'll come up with ways to use them to intrude into our lives. Give someone power, and they'll eventually figure out how to use it.

Quote :

"It seems to me like harping on the drones themselves distracts from the real issues with our foreign policies."

Maybe it does, but you aren't seeing that the drones, themselves, more easily enable the policy. When our troops aren't dying, the American public doesn't give a shit and there's little for the media to report on. We don't give a fuck that civilians are dying over there, you've already stated as much. But when Seaman Timmy and Seargant Bob get blown up by an IED in BumFuckistan, all of a sudden we take notice.

Quote :

"Drones could make things better if used correctly"

What the hell makes you think the government, which has consistently abused damned near every power it has ever obtained, will restrain itself this time? Are you truly that naive?

Quote :

"fine. reverse the order: 1) surveillance, 2)slaughter. the point still stands."

Not only that, but they made it for surveillance so they could more easily slaughter. Surveillance was the means to the original end of slaughter.

Quote :

"Since the most reliable and unbiased evidence moron or I can find at the moment indicates a decline in civilian casualties"

Uhh, dude, I agree with the sentiment, but are you talking about the recent evidence that civilian deaths are lower because we don't classify anyone as a civilian any more? That's hardly "unbiased".

Quote :

"If you can't put 2 and 2 together and understand that these six indictments are a clear message to government insiders to not leak negative information for fear of getting Bradley Manning style punishment, then I don't know what to tell you."

You are begging the question by assuming these people are bonafide whistleblowers in the first place.

Quote :

"The US wasn't officially at war against the CSA"

Yeah, they were, but let's not get into that here.

Quote :

"Obama's greatest legacy will not be of him rising as some sort of transformative figure. It'll be that he took issues that were considered "extreme" and "far right" from the previous administration, and cemented them as normal and gave them bi-partisan consensus. His administration has re-calibrated the political landscape and turned the idea of constant warfare and civil liberty abuses as the new centrist position."

Oh look, someone still thinks that there is something meaningfully different between Republicans and Democrats. How cute! Dude, Democrats were just as happy in the 90s under Clinton doing the same shit Obama's doing today. They only got uppity during Dubya's term when he continued the same tactics because Dubya had an R beside his name. Otherwise, as we see now, they'd have supported him to the hilt.

Quote :

"Then what's the point of classifying information in the first place? Surely, you see how this selective prosecution lends itself to abuse, no?"

Government will abuse its power? GET OUT!

6/7/2012 11:36:33 PM

A bit off topic from the direction this thread has taken, no doubt:

But fairly recently, the FAA approved drones for use in the united states airspace. There isn't a solid plan in action yet to implement this, but that is beside the point...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/11/us/maryland-drone-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



There was a Navy drone crash in MD today, near Salisbury. These types of crashes with drones aren't nearly as uncommon as some might have you believe. I can't help but think that once every police force has drones to fly around, there will be many MANY more crashes... possibly damaging personal property and/or killing civilians.

I'm just a tad uneasy about all of this, or other reasons as well.



[Edited on June 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ddf]

6/11/2012 4:58:29 PM