Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Drones and ExtraJudicial Killings

drones

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#46    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,406 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:30 PM

I disagree with that dissasociated statement.  But that's just an opinion which I can't back up with experience.  From what I've seen on TV showing the drones being operated they seem to be less realistic looking than some video games I've played.  And after a good day of killing people in thier homes from halfway around the world, the drone pilot gets in his car and drives a short distance home to eat with his family and walk the dog on his nice suburban street before making love to the wife and sleeping comfortably on his dial a number mattress.

How about the mortar team?  See, big difference.

Edited by OverSword, 05 June 2012 - 10:31 PM.


#47    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,406 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:32 PM

snip

Edited by OverSword, 05 June 2012 - 10:33 PM.


#48    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,862 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 05 June 2012 - 10:55 PM

Quote

I disagree with that dissasociated statement.  But that's just an opinion which I can't back up with experience.  From what I've seen on TV showing the drones being operated they seem to be less realistic looking than some video games I've played.  And after a good day of killing people in thier homes from halfway around the world, the drone pilot gets in his car and drives a short distance home to eat with his family and walk the dog on his nice suburban street before making love to the wife and sleeping comfortably on his dial a number mattress.

How about the mortar team?  See, big difference.


Mortars are much closer range so it can go either way. Artillery though... you dont see anything on any sort of TV screen. You just adjust the guns to the right angles and pull a chord to fire.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#49    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 06 June 2012 - 12:02 AM

Though it's not used currently, cruise missiles and smart bombs are also removed experiences.  In principle, are you opposed to their use?
I don't want to tie the hands of our military.  How necessary drones are is something the military determines for itself.  How we use the military is something we have some weight in through our representatives, and our votes.


#50    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,519 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 06 June 2012 - 01:02 PM

Actually the Constitution is quite specific regarding the War Power--it is vested in the legislative branch.

Written in a time when Congress only met for a few months out of the year, it made the Executive Branch the C-in-C so that if military action were required while Congress was not in session, the Prez could do it.  Were that to happen, Congress would convene, and the Prez would have to justify his actions.

As FDR put it so well, "I do not have the power to declare War, but I do have the power to wage war."

OverSword is correct--our current military actions are illegal.  The AUMF was sophistry.


#51    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,406 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 06 June 2012 - 02:35 PM

:passifier:

Edited by OverSword, 06 June 2012 - 02:40 PM.


#52    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:19 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 06 June 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Actually the Constitution is quite specific regarding the War Power--it is vested in the legislative branch.

Written in a time when Congress only met for a few months out of the year, it made the Executive Branch the C-in-C so that if military action were required while Congress was not in session, the Prez could do it.  Were that to happen, Congress would convene, and the Prez would have to justify his actions.

As FDR put it so well, "I do not have the power to declare War, but I do have the power to wage war."

OverSword is correct--our current military actions are illegal.  The AUMF was sophistry.
I don't understand Babe Ruth, you first say the President has full authority to wage war and follow it up by saying he did not have the authority to wage war.  Which is it?
If he does, it is LEGAL.  It did happen to go to courts and was found to be in his right.  Don't know what you're basing the 'illegal' comment on.


#53    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,519 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 June 2012 - 06:34 PM

Ranrod

It appears you do not quite understand the difference between "wage" and "declare".  Get out your dictionary.

Don't get me wrong--I don't blame all this on the executive branch.  The legislative branch has abdicated its lawful repsonsibility to control the military and the way the country conducts its military ventures.  The executive has waged numerous illegal wars, and congress has sat on its hands, passing the superfluous AUMF.

The president is authorized to essentially do as he pleases with the military, but if the crisis is so serious that it requires 10 years of war, isn't it proper to go ahead and declare a war?  If one governs under constitutional authority and principles?


#54    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 07 June 2012 - 07:44 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Ranrod

It appears you do not quite understand the difference between "wage" and "declare".  Get out your dictionary.

Don't get me wrong--I don't blame all this on the executive branch.  The legislative branch has abdicated its lawful repsonsibility to control the military and the way the country conducts its military ventures.  The executive has waged numerous illegal wars, and congress has sat on its hands, passing the superfluous AUMF.

The president is authorized to essentially do as he pleases with the military, but if the crisis is so serious that it requires 10 years of war, isn't it proper to go ahead and declare a war?  If one governs under constitutional authority and principles?
I just wonder about the use of the word 'illegal'.  The President had the right to wage war, he did, where's the illegal part?
Do you mean that the war in Iraq is improperly labeled as a military conflict rather than a formal war?
I remember reading the press releases when the war started and the military saying it was going to take 10 years to stabilize the country after the war.


#55    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,519 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 June 2012 - 12:28 PM

We must look at the Big Picture, ranrod.

While it is true that the Prez is C-in-C, it is also true that the Bush administration deceived the nation in going to war.

Many of us understood that AS IT WAS HAPPENING, but now years later, anybody who is intellectually honest knows that Colin Powell et al were lying with their case against Iraq.

So while the Prez is C-in-C, that does not give him the right to deceive the nation for what was essentially personal gain for him and his cronies.  In fact, such deception would be HIGH CRIMES, as described for impeachment under the Constitution.

Does that help?


#56    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 08 June 2012 - 08:10 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 June 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

We must look at the Big Picture, ranrod.

While it is true that the Prez is C-in-C, it is also true that the Bush administration deceived the nation in going to war.

Many of us understood that AS IT WAS HAPPENING, but now years later, anybody who is intellectually honest knows that Colin Powell et al were lying with their case against Iraq.

So while the Prez is C-in-C, that does not give him the right to deceive the nation for what was essentially personal gain for him and his cronies.  In fact, such deception would be HIGH CRIMES, as described for impeachment under the Constitution.

Does that help?
Yes, thank you.  If the reasons they gave for going to war were manufactured, I would say the war is illegal as well.  Who's willing to go after those guys though?  No accountability.


#57    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,958 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:45 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 June 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

We must look at the Big Picture, ranrod.

While it is true that the Prez is C-in-C, it is also true that the Bush administration deceived the nation in going to war.

Many of us understood that AS IT WAS HAPPENING, but now years later, anybody who is intellectually honest knows that Colin Powell et al were lying with their case against Iraq.

So while the Prez is C-in-C, that does not give him the right to deceive the nation for what was essentially personal gain for him and his cronies.  In fact, such deception would be HIGH CRIMES, as described for impeachment under the Constitution.

Does that help?
Are you saying Bush lied to get us into war in Afghanistan?  I understand the logic behind saying that of Iraq but even there I don't believe it was about lying as much as shoddy intelligence and being overzealous to get Saddam.  Afghanistan was a no brainer.  The Taliban were responsible for shielding and otherwise helping alQueda and they got their a$$ busted for it.  But that was the work of a year or so.  When the mission became democratizing Afghanistan we were dead in the water.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#58    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,519 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 June 2012 - 06:11 PM

Yes, Bush lied.  And so did nearly everybody on his various staffs, at least the chiefs of staff.  Look what they did to Valerie Plame.

They were pathological liars, and they don't have the market cornered in that regard.


#59    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,958 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 09 June 2012 - 09:59 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 09 June 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Yes, Bush lied.  And so did nearly everybody on his various staffs, at least the chiefs of staff.  Look what they did to Valerie Plame.

They were pathological liars, and they don't have the market cornered in that regard.
Yeah BR, I get the whole BUSH IS SATAN meme.  But I'm asking you if you think we had no business in Afghanistan after the Taliban rulers aided and comforted al Queda?

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#60    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 10,770 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 10 June 2012 - 12:02 AM

Ranrod, the President's role in warfare is to "run" the wr, but it is not his role or right to declare war on someone. They can't say "and we're going to go to war with Iraqistan today" because that'sthe role of the senate, but the president can say"the invasion of Iraqistan will be at 10am tomorrow, following the bombardment of the country from the sea and from the air" albeit only once the senate has declared war.

Bush didn't wait for the senate part, or rather lied/manipulated the facts in order to get them to de lare war.

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.





Also tagged with drones

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users