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.


- - - - -

The Drone Memo -What Do You Think?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,753 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:00 PM

http://usnews.nbcnew...drone-memo?lite

I agreed with the killing of Anwar al Awlaki.  He was a killer of Americans and had plans to continue such acts.  He was in a place where he would have probably not been taken alive even by JSOC forces and he was a definite threat.   Having said that, his case is being used as a smoke screen for Obama and future presidents to basically become judge, jury and execution without even judicial action being possible after the fact.  
What do you think?

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#2    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:10 PM

View Postand then, on 06 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

http://usnews.nbcnew...drone-memo?lite

I agreed with the killing of Anwar al Awlaki.  He was a killer of Americans and had plans to continue such acts.  He was in a place where he would have probably not been taken alive even by JSOC forces and he was a definite threat.   Having said that, his case is being used as a smoke screen for Obama and future presidents to basically become judge, jury and execution without even judicial action being possible after the fact.  
What do you think?

That is what we get with the vagueness of the limitations, right now he can declare war on any militia he sees is a threat to the government. That includes the citizens of United States, because we are considered a militia.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#3    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,198 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:13 PM

To me this has two aspects, the one is that, no matter your nationality, if you declare war on the US you can be taken out by military means. The other is that he was taken out in a place that had nothing to do with any wars, and that makes it questionable.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#4    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:16 PM

I believe we have a few threads on this topic now :P

Kind of see this two ways. On the one hand some of the wording seems rather vague and this could lead to abuse. So either it needs to be complete reworked or there needs to be some solid guidelines on just who is a target.

On the other hand this is saying that the nationality of an enemy combatant doesn't matter, if he's an enemy of the US, is an active threat, and can't be captured then he's going to get dead. That part frankly makes sense to me.

Edited by Corp, 06 February 2013 - 05:16 PM.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#5    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,753 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:34 PM

View PostCorp, on 06 February 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

I believe we have a few threads on this topic now :P

Kind of see this two ways. On the one hand some of the wording seems rather vague and this could lead to abuse. So either it needs to be complete reworked or there needs to be some solid guidelines on just who is a target.

On the other hand this is saying that the nationality of an enemy combatant doesn't matter, if he's an enemy of the US, is an active threat, and can't be captured then he's going to get dead. That part frankly makes sense to me.
I wanted a fresh look considering the memo is new information but if the thread needs to be merged no problem mods :)
I agree with your take on this.  My biggest problem with the policy is that it is too vague.  It can basically be morphed and tortured to mean anything a president wants it to, then after the fact it doesn't allow for legal review apparently.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#6    Purifier

Purifier

    Δ

  • Member
  • 2,216 posts
  • Joined:12 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male

  • We don't need to conquer the world, we need to conquer our individual selves first. Then the world will be at peace.

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:46 PM

Seems like a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy to me. If that's the case and you simply say the wrong thing that is anti-government, well...I guess your life insurance is gonna come in handy one day.

Study the past, if you would divine the future.
- Confucius

#7    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 06 February 2013 - 05:57 PM

View Postand then, on 06 February 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

I wanted a fresh look considering the memo is new information but if the thread needs to be merged no problem mods :)
I agree with your take on this.  My biggest problem with the policy is that it is too vague.  It can basically be morphed and tortured to mean anything a president wants it to, then after the fact it doesn't allow for legal review apparently.

Well it says the kill order can only be given if the person is part of a group that's an active threat to the US and can't be easily captured. So there are guidelines that in theory would only include Americans who have joined terrorist groups who are actively fighting the US. There just needs to be more guildelines about the guidelines.

One point I raised elsewhere was the question of location. I think the purpose of the memo is directed towards foreign combat zones but I wonder if it could be used within the US. Say a terrorist plot is discovered but has reached a point where it can't be stopped using conventual means. Would drones then be allowed to be used?

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#8    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,714 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 06 February 2013 - 06:59 PM

Assuming that ours is a country under the rule of law, and that the Supreme Law of the Land is the US Constitution, and that the federal government is created by and bound by the Constitution, this action represents a usurpation of power, an illegal act.

By deliberately breaking the USC, the guilty parties have acted in a treasonous manner.  They have defied the law and completely ignored their oath of office.

If we were really a country governed by the rule of law, those offenders would be prosecuted.

It's not happening, and the reasons are obvious.


#9    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:15 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 06 February 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

Assuming that ours is a country under the rule of law, and that the Supreme Law of the Land is the US Constitution, and that the federal government is created by and bound by the Constitution, this action represents a usurpation of power, an illegal act.

By deliberately breaking the USC, the guilty parties have acted in a treasonous manner.  They have defied the law and completely ignored their oath of office.

If we were really a country governed by the rule of law, those offenders would be prosecuted.

It's not happening, and the reasons are obvious.

Exactly. The government and this admen has infringed upon 8 of those amendments in the past 5 years.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#10    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,714 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:32 PM

I thought the Unpatriot Act marked the end of constitutional government.  I guess it rather marked the Beginning of the End.

This action, and the NDAA amendment are still more signs of the end of constitutional government.


#11    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,235 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:14 PM

View Postand then, on 06 February 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

http://usnews.nbcnew...drone-memo?lite

I agreed with the killing of Anwar al Awlaki.  He was a killer of Americans and had plans to continue such acts.  He was in a place where he would have probably not been taken alive even by JSOC forces and he was a definite threat.   Having said that, his case is being used as a smoke screen for Obama and future presidents to basically become judge, jury and execution without even judicial action being possible after the fact.  
What do you think?

I agree to an extent, but I have a big problem with the vagueness of the directive.

I'm also concerned about the precedent that is being set.  Case in point:  I've read articles about a Jihadist training camp in Sullivan County, NY, that had been infiltrated by the FBI.  Well now, why bother.  Just Predator the place into the ground.  No justification offered and no questions asked.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#12    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:33 PM

The way I read it it can be used on US soil and on US citizens that are not part of the War on Terror but are deemed to be threats. Thats a vast change in policy on the use of drones or just a leak of a long existing policy. Not sure which.

They would never attempt to use this on a non-alqueda sponsored terrorist cell first setting precedent that then would further erode its ultimate purpose. Being able to use drones against common objectors of US policy. Which are often deemed to be "pseudo terrorists at this point in time". Call it the slippery slope.

Ultimately the "kill order" no longer has to come directly from the President and within the US will be controlled by parts by parts of DHS which may not have the same discretion *cough* that the POTUS would have regarding the use of drones on US citizens used on US soil.

Long story short unless Al-Queda is trying to pull off something big its unlikely they will get the chance to pull something as a drone strike on US soil.

IMO


#13    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 07 February 2013 - 04:29 PM

http://www.washingto...es-legislation/

current legislation in process to limit drones in US by States. Mostly non military.


#14    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,235 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:12 PM

View PostAsteroidX, on 07 February 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

http://www.washingto...es-legislation/

current legislation in process to limit drones in US by States. Mostly non military.

I would think any use of military drones would fall under PC would it not?

Of course, how easy is it to take an Air Force drone and repaint it with DHS markings?

Bombs away!

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#15    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 07 February 2013 - 05:45 PM

Already happened. Our tax dollars hard at work.

http://www.thenewame...buy-more-drones





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users