1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Four drone operators have turned into whistleblowers, calling for an immediate end to the drone war

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Northside Storm, Nov 21, 2015.

  1. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...sis-recruitment-tool-air-force-whistleblowers

    They note that the program, as currently designed, violates the Constitution and American laws, and that it's much worse than what we can know.

    They note that they don't know who they're killing, and that the drone war is a "driving factor" in the rise of terrorism and hate.

    As an example of how extremely dehumanizing the program has become, children who are in the area and run a high risk of being killed are now referred to as "fun-sized" terrorists.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/us-mideast-crisis-usa-drones-idUSKCN0T901B20151120

    They all agree that they would end the drone war.

    We may disagree on their motivations and what they're saying, but there is no dispute that they have placed themselves at great personal risk to express what they believe, especially given how the current administration tends to treat whistleblowers.
     
  2. Classic

    Classic Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,101
    Likes Received:
    608
    “devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world”.

    I'm quite sure the Pentagon knows this and it is the reason for the program. This illegal warfare guarantees events (see Paris) that will guarantee public support of military funding.
     
  3. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    That claim appears to be anecdotal, and misinterprets the Constitution. Confederate soldiers were not convicted of treason in a court of law prior to the Union Army's engagement with the South. In fact, Jefferson Davis' trial did not begin until hostilities had ended. Not always necessary to go through court to get a congress-prescribed punishment.

    Does intention imply innocence or non-involvement (with regard to the activities that warranted the military action in the first place)?
     
  4. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    This seems to corrobrate with your statement. At the very least, the Pentagon is authorizing operations that its own operators admit "often killed non-combatants inadvertently" and which caused "pointless deaths".

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/us-mideast-crisis-usa-drones-idUSKCN0T901B20151120
     
  5. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    That skirts over a key issue: once you get delibrately killed, there is no trial possible. Can Congress (or really in this case, the executive branch) prescribe the death penalty without a trial? Beyond the Constitutional implications, Executive Order 12333 would suggest no, even with its recent "amendments", but America seems to have, as of late, become a nation that favors overturning moral principles for ill-advised short-term gain.

    If you read the Intercept papers, you'll quickly realize that EKIA often means "you were a combat-age male in relatively close distance to a known target, which may not be a known target due to faulty intelligence."

    https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/

    With such a stunningly low bar for what constitutes an EKIA (90% of the casualties at a certain point of the drone war), I am not surprised that operators are convinced "they often killed non-combatants inadvertently".
     
    #5 Northside Storm, Nov 21, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2015
  6. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    So what? Were the hundreds of thousands of confederate soldiers killed in the Civil War given trials? Did George Washington and congress hold trials before he lead troops into battle during the Whiskey Rebellion?

    Besides, it is very possible that words like "traitor" and "treason" were tossed around on a layman's basis within the drone program. They were referring to an individual who they suspected was engaged in an active hostile campaign against the United States. This wasn't someone who was detained in custody - this was someone who was accussed of actively recruiting soldiers and planning attacks against the United States.

    Could also mean these were recruits, arms suppliers to the combatants, or in other ways they were individuals giving aid to these combatants.
     
  7. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    The fact that you are referring to periods of American history where well-defined legal precedents had not been defined and which were real existential wars for the survival of the nation, and one period which was marked by the suspension of haebas corpus shows me how far you are stretching to defend this. One could note that even a body of law as significant as the Reconstruction Amendments had not even been fully implemented in either of those examples.

    And you skirt over a critical fact, beyond ignoring current laws that reflect the evolution of American morality: Jefferson Davis was evantually granted amnesty.

    Could also mean that you just bombed somebody's mom and a bunch of "fun-sized terrorists" because 50%+ of your intelligence is "faulty". 90% of any pool is a pretty huge pool in of itself.

    That's a lot of "could also means" for a program that is purported to be razor sharp at avoiding civilian deaths.
     
    #7 Northside Storm, Nov 21, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2015
  8. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    There is no reason to think that particular individual had to be given a trial and had to be prescribed a punishment of death for his active engagement in hostilities against the United States. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

    The United States military relies on its allies to the best of its judgement and ability.
     
  9. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    What kind of fantasy world do you live in where an executive order authorized and re-authorized by several presidents proscribing assassination can be undone by referring to George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion? :confused:

    A mini-rebellion, I should note, where 3–4 rebels were killed and 170 captured.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

    Yeah, and that has worked very well for the ultimate goal of reducing civilian casualties, and ending(?) the War on Terror.

    http://www.msf.org/topics/kunduz-hospital-airstrike

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/how-drones-help-al-qaeda.html?_r=0
     
    #9 Northside Storm, Nov 21, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2015
  10. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Context and precedence matter. This guy was not Edward Snowden. This individual was in an active military-style campaign against the US - involving planning attacks and recruiting new combatants. Really?

    The US isn't perfect, and neither are its allies. BTW, The War on Terror was in reaction to the 9/11 attacks. What exactly had the US done to provoke these attacks: close contact dancing at high school proms and repelling an invading force out of Kuwait?
     
  11. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    will be Obama's legacy
     
  12. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Your own examples betray you. Jefferson Davis was in active combat with the United States: he was granted amnesty. The Whiskey Rebellion involved active combat and ended with the vast majority of rebels being captured, not killed.

    Precedence and context do indeed matter, like the precedence and context of current United States laws.

    http://www.propublica.org/article/drone-strikes-test-legal-grounds-for-war-on-terror

    This is a tangental topic I'd be happy to debate with you if you start your own thread. As it is, this thread isn't about why the drone war started so much as it is about why it should or shouldn't be ended.
     
  13. DudeWah

    DudeWah Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    9,643
    Likes Received:
    3,523
    You truly have to be very unintelligent and illogical to be willing to bring up the revolutionary war and civil war to defend drone strikes in the 21st century.

    I'm impressed that anyone could be so daft as to not see the gigantic differences.
     
  14. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=62967

    Genuine question: have you changed your mind on the War on Terror? or was it more of a "Bush did this, Obama is continuing it, but Obama owns it" situation?
     
  15. REEKO_HTOWN

    REEKO_HTOWN I'm Rich Biiiiaaatch!

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    46,675
    Likes Received:
    18,235
    Better than sending 4,000 troops to die in Iraq to avenge daddy.
     
  16. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Jesus.

    http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/SticiGui/Text/reasoning.htm#relevance

    Precedence is not solely current US laws but is also based on past court decisions. BTW, you are the one bringing the issue of Constitutionality to the debate. You should prepare your case better, rather than rely on fallacies (see link above).

    That is not even an issue here. Another fallacy.
     
  17. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    What a pathetic attempt at trolling. It's not even on topic! unless you assume war on terror=Obama's drone program
     
  18. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,899
    Likes Received:
    2,246
    That had congressional approval. You know, back when Presidents did that kind of thing?

    edit: and Hillary supported, too! *snort*
     
  19. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    President Obama is authorizing drone strikes based on AUMF. You may remember that being signed on September, 14th, 2001 after passing through Congress.
     
    #19 Northside Storm, Nov 21, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2015
  20. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    Obama's drone program traces its "legality" directly to the AUMF that has defined the War on Terror for a decade and a half now.

    I don't understand how saying "it's Obama's legacy" adds anything to a discussion of whether or not to end the drone program, beyond your characteristic drive to turn tragedies into partisan politics.
     

Share This Page