Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
and then

Drones and ExtraJudicial Killings

90 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

:passifier: Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Is there a chance we're confusing intent with incompetence? The US has great intelligence but it's not infallible. I think a lot of cases where people think the government is evil is actually cases where the government is incompetent. I don't know if the War on Iraq would fall in that category though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm too cynical to accept incompetence. Somebody bought options on airlines prior to 911, and all that means is that somebody in the CIA knew what was going to happen.

Incompetence is not a valid assumption, all things considered. Through the history of mankind, time and again government has demonstrated how it becomes corrupt. Sad to report, it's normal behavior for huge bureaucracies.

And part of the reason I'm cynical is that I found out first hand in 1970 that the CIA was in the dope business in southeast asia.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand the concept of the drones being disconnected from reality, because it is much like video games you play on computer with joysticks. You sit there and kill targets onscreen without having to actually physically pull the trigger. The only difference between drones and missiles is the fact you can able to switch targets on the fly before launching the missile attached to the drone. The technology of drones needs to be more redefined and more limits attached to them, because they can be used constantly without the danger of dying. Definitely can understand the dangers of using drones, feeling like your superior than those that are in the line of your fire. All it could take is a single person who gets a hold of the most advance drones with multiple missiles, that could be tipped with nuclear tips to launch a devastated attack against populations without the knowledge of the government start an nuclear war. Heck it wouldn't even take a nuclear tipped drone to start an war, a drone with multiple missiles can do the trick.

Bottom line, drones are a double edge sword. On one hand they cost less and no danger to the soldier controlling it, but also means it could lead to detachment of reality and the danger of being used by a radical individual to go on a rampage without the knowledge of the government. Most wars of the past was started over a trivial issue like this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do understand the concept of the drones being disconnected from reality, because it is much like video games you play on computer with joysticks. You sit there and kill targets onscreen without having to actually physically pull the trigger. The only difference between drones and missiles is the fact you can able to switch targets on the fly before launching the missile attached to the drone. The technology of drones needs to be more redefined and more limits attached to them, because they can be used constantly without the danger of dying. Definitely can understand the dangers of using drones, feeling like your superior than those that are in the line of your fire. All it could take is a single person who gets a hold of the most advance drones with multiple missiles, that could be tipped with nuclear tips to launch a devastated attack against populations without the knowledge of the government start an nuclear war. Heck it wouldn't even take a nuclear tipped drone to start an war, a drone with multiple missiles can do the trick.

Bottom line, drones are a double edge sword. On one hand they cost less and no danger to the soldier controlling it, but also means it could lead to detachment of reality and the danger of being used by a radical individual to go on a rampage without the knowledge of the government. Most wars of the past was started over a trivial issue like this...

I disagree with the radical individual argument. A guy in the cockpit of a real plane can do whatever he wants, but the guy operating an UAV is in a supervised station and can be removed from the controls. Much more safe than traditional methods from that point of view.

I also disagree that our greater ability to do combat more safely and precisely is a detriment to us. We can argue about how the US uses it's resources, but in a war zone I want my side to have all the advantages they can have.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what will happen when they declare CONUS to be a theater in the Global War On Terror Zone?

They already have 1 or 2 regiments of US Army designated a role in that scenario.

Hot damn! Firing on american terrorists on american soil would be more fun than a barrel of monkeys, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've sensed real animosity against the US for using these aircraft to kill combatants as well as "suspected" combatants.

It's true that decent people are angry because droning is so immoral and hypocritical.

It would be nice to live in a world without hypocracy and immorallity. Although that will never be completely acheived, we could certainly get a lot closer. I think working toward it is a worthwhile endeavor.

Edited by Charlie Prime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm too cynical to accept incompetence. Somebody bought options on airlines prior to 911, and all that means is that somebody in the CIA knew what was going to happen.

Incompetence is not a valid assumption, all things considered. Through the history of mankind, time and again government has demonstrated how it becomes corrupt. Sad to report, it's normal behavior for huge bureaucracies.

And part of the reason I'm cynical is that I found out first hand in 1970 that the CIA was in the dope business in southeast asia.

And let's just keep in mind that Afghanistan is the number one opium producer in the world. And just who is it that runs all of these drone strikes?? Well if you can believe the papers it's none other than the CIA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homeland Battlefield Act is apparently one of the names they call the NDAA amendment.

Yeppir, using drones to shoot up american 'terrists' on american soil. Ain't it great AND THEN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what will happen when they declare CONUS to be a theater in the Global War On Terror Zone?

They already have 1 or 2 regiments of US Army designated a role in that scenario.

Hot damn! Firing on american terrorists on american soil would be more fun than a barrel of monkeys, eh?

I don't see how firing on american terrorists on american soil will ever happen. Don't they just get arrested? Raided by the ATF or something? Now a US territory outside of CONUS, I can see. The US congress has twice used the military (in the form of national guard) to quell violence in Puerto Rico; which included armored helicopters, heavy armored vehicles, and tons of troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ranrod

The first time US troops fired on US citizens (terrists, if you will) was back in the 20's with the old Brown Shoe Army guys who wanted the money the government had promised them.

Then Kent State, and then a variety of incidents in the name of the War On Drugs.

As long as the public accepts the sophistry of the GWOT, and the various assassinations affiliated with it, it is just a matter of time before assassinations will be performed by drone on US soil.

I plead guilty to being a cynical b******, but that does not make me wrong. I hope I am wrong, I really do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homeland Battlefield Act is apparently one of the names they call the NDAA amendment.

Yeppir, using drones to shoot up american 'terrists' on american soil. Ain't it great AND THEN?

As opposed to using manned planes to shoot up American "terrorists" on American soil? Am I missing something here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As opposed to using manned planes to shoot up American "terrorists" on American soil? Am I missing something here?

Ignorant a little?

Since terrorism is a crime, suspected terrorists in the USA should be arrested and charged with a crime. Not assasinated by high flying drones along with anyone else that happens to be in thier home.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As opposed to using manned planes to shoot up American "terrorists" on American soil? Am I missing something here?

I'm not quite sure of the point you're trying to make, but you raise an interesting point.

I don't see any substantive difference between assassination by sniper, by drone, or by F-16. They are all assassination.

It does seem the drone tends to depersonalize the event, fwiw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure of the point you're trying to make, but you raise an interesting point.

I don't see any substantive difference between assassination by sniper, by drone, or by F-16. They are all assassination.

It does seem the drone tends to depersonalize the event, fwiw.

Babe, I believe what he is saying that it's fine with him if the government uses drones to kill suspected American terrorists on American soil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.