Drone strikes

  1. 3
    NBC released the "white pages" that outline the legal basis for targeting US citizens abroad. This has NOT been a transparent operation that is NOT managed by the military. They have some explaining to do and some of it will occur in the confirmation hearings.

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf
    azhiker96, CrufflerJJ, and herring_RN like this.
  2. 95 Comments so far...

  3. 1
    Disturbing and, i think, wrong.
    tewdles likes this.
  4. 2
    For a list of agencies/corporations seeking authorization to fly drones here in the USA, see:

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/0...ons-unanswered
    herring_RN and tewdles like this.
  5. 1
    I am not certain if I think it is wrong...but it is surely a bit alarming.
    Personally, I have some comfort in our government killing people who are actively engaged in conspiring against the US in terrorist activities. If they are not in the country, if they are not available to be detained and put through due process, then off with their heads. I don't feel that the safety of the whole is less important than the individual rights of that terrorist.

    Regardless, this is brand spanking new territory of power for our POTUS and executive branch...
    herring_RN likes this.
  6. 2
    I too, have mixed feelings on this. I want to share the umbrage so many of my fellow liberals feel on this, but, i am ashamed to admit, i have a bit of trouble mustering up a full blown outrage the way i should. I know i should be up in arms, but, honestly, i feel ashamed, i just can't get as upset about this as i should. Possibly, it is a form of war-fatique in me, not sure. Hopefully, it is not my morals are deteriorating..

    Me, i am against killing people, whether the bombs are dropped by Manned aircraft, or UNmanned aircraft. Guess it doesn't matter much to the person on the ground, if there was a pilot in the plane that dropped the bomb.

    I don't think having the CIA, or various govts, all killing people is "new". I don't think having this govt, or many other govts, sneaking around the globe, "taking out' various people, is "new". I think being able to do it without risking one of "our" humans-- is what is new. I think the citizens of USA being aware of this behavior, is mostly "new".

    As much as i loathe war,
    maybe it's watching too many spy movies, that make a more surgical strike at the actual leaders the USA is worried about,
    might be less horrific
    than having 1000s of uninvolved innocent soldiers all slaughtered in a fight between two types of leaders.

    Either way, it's horrific, i do know that. I know the person being killed by a bomb, has not been put to trial. I know a govt can make mistakes. I know many others nearby are being killed, too. All of these things make me ill. I do have trouble with the undeclared war bit, (is it a war if we are going after one person? i don't know) too, but, this is not reeeeally "new".

    I think many nations have been doing this type of thing for a long long time.
    but,
    having 1000s of OTHERS die as pawns in a war between 2 or more leaders,
    like we do in fullblown war,
    also makes me ill.

    It is hard for me to know, if having a few dozen killed,
    is
    less horrific, than having 100s killed, to get same target.

    It is hard for me to know,
    if having only a few people involved in such dealings,
    is less horrific
    than full blown wars, which also kills innocent bystanders, too. (actually, the soldiers are innocents, sent in by the leaders, further clouding my idea of which form of war is worse..)
    herring_RN and tewdles like this.
  7. 3
    The thing that is alarming about this to me is that they start out by establishing 3 criteria for offing a US citizen with a drone:
    1. That the target is a ranking Al-Qaeda figure.
    2. That he or she poses "an imminent threat of violent attack" against America.
    3. That capture is not "feasible."
    Then, they later state that "imminent" does not mean they must have clear evidence that an attack is planned for the immediate future. I guess I'm mostly disturbed that our nation's leaders can't define the word imminent.
    Obama's Memo on Killing Americans Twists 'Imminent Threat' Like Bush - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic
    azhiker96, herring_RN, and tewdles like this.
  8. 1
    The lack of ability to define imminent became very apparent during the Bush administration and it has apparenly not improved much with this administration.

    Imminent has a much less "general" definition in health care...especially at end of life.
    herring_RN likes this.
  9. 1
    I guarantee it if Georg Bush were doing this right now the liberal outrage would be deafening. But when there is a Democrat in the whitehouse not a whimper. What I really love is the left proclaiming water boarding bad but drone strikes are good.

    Quote from Jean Marie46514
    I too, have mixed feelings on this. I want to share the umbrage so many of my fellow liberals feel on this, but, i am ashamed to admit, i have a bit of trouble mustering up a full blown outrage the way i should. I know i should be up in arms, but, honestly, i feel ashamed, i just can't get as upset about this as i should. Possibly, it is a form of war-fatique in me, not sure. Hopefully, it is not my morals are deteriorating..

    Me, i am against killing people, whether the bombs are dropped by Manned aircraft, or UNmanned aircraft. Guess it doesn't matter much to the person on the ground, if there was a pilot in the plane that dropped the bomb.

    I don't think having the CIA, or various govts, all killing people is "new". I don't think having this govt, or many other govts, sneaking around the globe, "taking out' various people, is "new". I think being able to do it without risking one of "our" humans-- is what is new. I think the citizens of USA being aware of this behavior, is mostly "new".

    As much as i loathe war,
    maybe it's watching too many spy movies, that make a more surgical strike at the actual leaders the USA is worried about,
    might be less horrific
    than having 1000s of uninvolved innocent soldiers all slaughtered in a fight between two types of leaders.

    Either way, it's horrific, i do know that. I know the person being killed by a bomb, has not been put to trial. I know a govt can make mistakes. I know many others nearby are being killed, too. All of these things make me ill. I do have trouble with the undeclared war bit, (is it a war if we are going after one person? i don't know) too, but, this is not reeeeally "new".

    I think many nations have been doing this type of thing for a long long time.
    but,
    having 1000s of OTHERS die as pawns in a war between 2 or more leaders,
    like we do in fullblown war,
    also makes me ill.

    It is hard for me to know, if having a few dozen killed,
    is
    less horrific, than having 100s killed, to get same target.

    It is hard for me to know,
    if having only a few people involved in such dealings,
    is less horrific
    than full blown wars, which also kills innocent bystanders, too. (actually, the soldiers are innocents, sent in by the leaders, further clouding my idea of which form of war is worse..)
    SC_RNDude likes this.
  10. 4
    We've tried torture, now we are moving on to targeting killings...slippery slopes and all.
    aknottedyarn, Elvish, CrufflerJJ, and 1 other like this.
  11. 0
    other than Fox news who is going to actually call them on it? Even code pink will yawn at this one.

    Quote from tewdles
    NBC released the "white pages" that outline the legal basis for targeting US citizens abroad. This has NOT been a transparent operation that is NOT managed by the military. They have some explaining to do and some of it will occur in the confirmation hearings.

    http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...hite_Paper.pdf


Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and Create Job Alerts, Manage Your Resume, and Apply for Jobs.

A Big Thank You To Our Sponsors
Top