The Nobel Foundation must be facepalming a lot these days after O's peace prize.
I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
191–200 of 491 posts
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#192Does anybody think there is space for a "CS Students against Weaponry" alliance? I go to Umass Amherst, and there are tons of people who end up working for Raytheon upon graduation. Sure, the 100k / yr is quite tempting when you just came from community college and a retail job just years before, but perhaps some education may stop students from agreeing to internships and careers at Raytheon, etc. It's oftentimes go…
If it were me I'd also get together a consortium of competing civilian recruiters to back such a venture.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first premise is right: life is scared. At least in our culture that's the case. We believe the natural rights of being a living human. But I argue that the 2nd is not true. The claim is too strong. If life is sacred, we ought not to kill anyone. Capital punishment must not be exercised as a result. Because people are rational animals they can make poor judgements. So we must forgive and give them a second chance…
What would be the benefit of killing a person if he/she can be taken prisoner safely and tried for his/her crimes.
People consume resources. Dead don't need food and shelter logistics.
(disclaimer: I don't advocate killing people, but I do believe that those concerns were and are evaluated doing wartime, if letting someone go is not an option)
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#194The entire concept of targeted drone assassinations is so surreal. Executing a convict in the US civilian court system requires a trial with a high-burden of proof, and the convict is afforded multiple appeals before the sentence is carried out. But in this case all it takes for the state to execute a suspect is the interpretation of some mid-level analyst. More perplexing, there are no qualms around civilian collate…
> In what universe is striking a convoy carrying a suspect but also carrying innocent (or even if not innocent, not deserving a death sentence) civilians, deemed acceptable? During war, as accepted by every politician going back to the dawn of civilization. On the plus side, for the past several hundred years, we've started to make efforts to minimize. > there are no qualms around civilian collateral damage. Really?…
Even rape and slavery was accepted not long ago, not enough reason to continue do it?
I'm seriously disgusted by some people capacity to accept brutality as normal and worse defend it too.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#195We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…
Thank you so much for reminding me that I should care about not being manipulated.
Your comment is so full of really good unbiased views that I just wanted to tell you how much non-manipulated I felt by your comment.
I especially enjoyed your notion that the Guardian is "serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion." You are so right. I always fell that the White House and the American military are always providing really insightful information that is really backed up substantiated by information.
I really felt the links in the article regarding the reporting of drone casualties were just pure manipulation. The manipulation was very strong as I read how credible people were debating the lack of information that was being provided:
http://www.voanews.com/content/resaercher-most-civilian-dron...
http://web.law.columbia.edu/human-rights-institute/counterte...
Please take some time and provide us some real links regarding what you consider "the search for truth".
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
What military objectives - we are not at war with any of these countries.
Why must war be against countries? The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan?
So let's send drones to Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there.
This is anti-national security -- all this does is pour gasoline on the fire of anti-American sentiment. People like you supporting this madness is the reason the world is going to hell. Ugh.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem very opinionated about this. I haven't given this as much thought as you have, but I think that doing something to protect your society from evil must count for something. Do you really see it as black and white as you describe it?
These soldiers are facing a huge personal price for the part they played in this war. The psychological impact of "just following orders" is huge and could damage them for the rest of their lives. We should respect veterans because of the personal cost, not because of the benefits (imagined or otherwise). You may see it a good vs evil, but I doubt that many of the victims do.
>These soldiers are facing a huge personal price for the part they played in this war. The psychological impact of "just following orders" is huge and could damage them for the rest of their lives. We should respect veterans because of the personal cost, not because of the benefits (imagined or otherwise). You may see it a good vs evil, but I doubt that many of the victims do.
Not to equate the Army with the Mafia, but this argument applies equally well to mafiosos. Both follow orders, do evil things, and suffer PTSD.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#198I find amount of pro-drone comments here quite stunning, including the complete lack of appreciation of how the economies of scale of drones will radically alter the equation of whether these are a good idea or not.
"Now, all right we killed some innocent civilians, but that happens in war and we're at a constant war against terror now so there you go. Lets not jump to any conclusions about drones before all the facts are in!"
All I can say is that these people will probably shut up and at least moderate their views as soon as the police in their country starts deploying drones en masse.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#199We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…
Your comment seems to ignore the fundamental question which has nothing to do with drones: should we be blowing up people remotely?
It's not just a question about remote vehicles - it's about the moral issues of blowing things up that are not physically proximate (and thus not a direct threat) to yourself.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to justify any of this business, but why on earth wouldn't they apply 'beyond reasonable doubt' in their own minds when summarily executing somebody in the first place?
That sort of standard works when the executor has massively more power than the executee. For the US versus an ordinary criminal, we can do it. Facing something that looks more like a war, applying standards of justice generally results in losing.
In this case, the executor has more power than the executee. The US can reduce people to bloody smears from drones that are almost invisible to their victims, with all the actual humans safely ensconced in bases hundreds of miles away. The people they're targetting have nothing like that - they cannot fight back without putting themselves straight in the line of fire.