Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 491 posts

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#411

Post by avenger123 »

pyre wrote: post #390
avenger123 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You make the assumption that his 'attack' on the Guardian's reporting is in essence support of the American military's / White House's position. To use a loaded example, would you say that someone railing against Stalin was a supporter of Hitler? Probably not.

Actually, I don't make that assumption at all.

The article in the Guardian is not done by a fly by night newspaper without any credibility. The newspaper was started in 1821 and is considered a leading newspaper. It does identify itself as a liberal voice but so what. When did reading about the life experience of a UAV analyst who actually provides some real context to her discussion by providing external links become a source of manipulation and a "biased" view. Frankly, I learned more about UAW operations from her article than any release done by the "official" sources. There is no reason for me to believe that Heather is not who she says she is or that she was influenced into saying what she says.

It's not about taking sides on the drone issue. It's about an article being attacked that was written as commentary by someone who is a thousand times closer to the situation than most of us ever will be. I will gladly read more of these. If Heather stated how great drone attacks were, my thoughts would still stand. Let's have all the information out there without attaching the information as manipulation or biased. Personally, I would like to decide what's manipulative and biased without being told so.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#412

Post by giardini »

fit2rule wrote: post #264
cmdkeen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth" That is just fundamentally untrue. The notion that all life is sacred and killing for a living is wrong is a very, very modern notion. Members of the military kill because it needs to happen. They would rather be members of a professional, trained force that means the number of total dead is minimised to the greatest extent p…

>The notion that all life is sacred and killing for a living is wrong is a very, very modern notion. Since time began, humans have been trying to stop it. So I don't think you're thinking this through .. >Members of the military kill because it needs to happen. Members of the military kill because they are ordered to do so, and no longer have the ability to express their own inherent free will. Nowhere in the history…

fit2rule:"Nowhere in the history of war has it ever been true that 'to kill a little now means not killing more later' - if it were, the killing would have stopped."

Not so. You jihadis have found that, for example in Algeria, by killing off the (relatively small) leadership of centrist and non-radical muslims you can eliminate opposition to radical jihad. Once these people are eliminated, opposition to jihad plummets (people are afraid to speak up) and Taliban-like elements can take over.

So indeed _you_ and _yours_ have learned that "killing a little now means not killing more later".

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#413

Post by coldtea »

melling wrote: post #224
coldtea wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you mean like in Syria where 130,000 people have died? Yes. How many have died in the US Civil war? I read ~215K combat deaths and ~500K civillian deaths. Should someone had intervene, e.g Britain or France, aiding one side over the other (and pushing their own agenda)? > Until after the WWII, the US really didn't involve itself in much of the world's conflicts. Our tradition is to pretty much leave the world to…

The French did intervene in the US Revolutionary War. That's probably why there is a United States today. Yes, WWII is well documented. The point was we didn't send in our full military until 1941. It's possible tens of millions more people would not have died if we had joined earlier.

>The French did intervene in the US Revolutionary War. That's probably why there is a United States today.

That's not the civil war I asked about though -- the revolutionary war was already between 2 different nations (well, one under construction).

And there was other differences: France did it to weaken Britain (the part which was their rival to their colonial and trade empire). Not to "bring justice/democracy/what have you".

And if France could do much power-wise, it would have taken whatever much it could from the new nation.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#414

Post by gcv »

yardie wrote: post #334
gcv wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with remote-control war is that there's no political cost Oversimplification. Domestically, the US is still paying the cost of using, eg, Agent Orange in Asia, today (children of service members born deformed).

Really? I haven't received my bill for agent orange in forever. Anyone sent to prison for authorising its use? Civil lawsuits? No, there was no cost (except to those directly affected) for using agent orange.

You haven't received a bill? Fascinating — do you not pay taxes? Because if you are, then you most certainly have been paying for medical treatments for veterans and their families, as well as various US government cleanup projects.

Civil lawsuit: http://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/claims-postservice-a...

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#415

Post by rdl »

midas007 wrote: post #404
rdl wrote: post #366

The only thing this shows is that the recruiting standards for the US drone program are substandard, as the author was allegedly part. 1) Yes, absolutely UAV based jammers don't block all IEDs. Ground jammers like WARLOCK also don't block all IEDs. One thing they did do was force a lot of command detonated IEDs to go to command wire systems, instead of various wireless systems, which meant we then had a man with a sw…

According to someone familiar with current specops / USAF rules-of-engagement, the rule is that an officer always had to be present to authorize a kill by a UAV. Period. If JSOC or others were/are doing something different, this could be grounds for court-martial.

It is "present in the ops center" I believe , which is the same standard as for ordering other strikes. I'm not as familiar with the backend, I just know the launch/recovery of UAV part, and the terminal part.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#416

Post by gnufied »

dba7dba wrote: post #326
lemmsjid wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to put myself in the shoes of the potential drone targets. I live in Los Angeles, which seems to be the official city of the police helicopter (always followed closely by the news helicopter, because the possibility of violence is entertainment). Over the years it's gotten to the point where multiple times a week they're buzzing around the neighborhood, stabbing the backyard with their searchlights. I've never…

>> When due process is undermined, the population becomes more alienated from the government, and more individuals become radicalized, and more terrorism happens. How many lives of soldiers would be risked and how much money would be spent for operations to 'capture' the terrorists in foreign nations? And will nations like Pakistan allow military (or law enforcement) operations on their soil by foreign govts to captu…

>If some Chinese or Russian 'freedom' fighters decide to train militarily in US with the goal of toppling current govt of China/Russia and did actually cause deaths/damage in China/Russia, would US govt sit back and let them train in US? Probably not.

The line of argument is so simplistic it boggles my mind. Lets get few facts straight:

a. Goal of terrorists is not to topple US government. You can't draw parallels between things without understanding their motive. Primary goal of a terrorist organisation operating out of Islamist state is to flex muscle and create terror. Often it is - revenge killings so as to deter state forces (of US, India, NATO). So far with each drone strike - make no mistake US is creating more terrorists. As a Indian, I detest each time our government kills/arrests a law abiding citizen of India - for just being a Muslim. Terrorists win each time. If you can accept those innocent people as collateral damage, you should be ready to accept 9/11 or Mumbai bomb blast victims as collateral too?

b. Deep down I believe some US citizens simply do not understand how terrorists work. They think, if you drone strike a bunker with important terrorist leader - problem will simply go away.

c. Look up Operation Cyclone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone). CIA trained and financed Taliban when it suited them. Did Russia drone strike key CIA administrators? India is similarly accused of training LTTE (http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2013/07/28/india-armed-tr...). A terrorist Organization which oddly enough killed our prime minister. Did Srilanka drone stike India?

The truth is - there is power and power allows powerful countries to make rules and let them get away with it. US uses drones strikes against Pakistan because they know they will get away with it. They dare not do the same against, Russia, China or even India. Assuming that drone strikes help reduce terrorism is just too naive.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#418

Post by rcthompson »

gorhill wrote: post #335
rcthompson wrote: post #130

How are the drones even relevant to the discussion? There are people controlling some device in order to kill other people. Why does it matter that the device happens to be an UAV in this case? How is it different if the device in question is instead a cruise missile? A rifle? A knife? A fist? To me, the whole discussion about drones is a big misdirection that uses people's irrational fear of "killer robots" to make…

> "How is it different if the device in question is instead a cruise missile? A rifle? A knife? A fist?" I am pretty sure it's easier to dehumanize people when they are merely pixels on a screen.

That's true, but it's missing my point. The whole "drone war" is being cast as robots killing humans, mostly ignoring the fact that humans are making every decision about who to kill. This puts the focus of the debate on the technology instead of where it should be, which is on the people who have decided that it is ok to kill other people. So people protesting the program are demanding "Stop using drones!" when they should be demanding "Stop murdering people!"

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#419

Post by ryguytilidie »

dba7dba wrote: post #326
lemmsjid wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to put myself in the shoes of the potential drone targets. I live in Los Angeles, which seems to be the official city of the police helicopter (always followed closely by the news helicopter, because the possibility of violence is entertainment). Over the years it's gotten to the point where multiple times a week they're buzzing around the neighborhood, stabbing the backyard with their searchlights. I've never…

>> When due process is undermined, the population becomes more alienated from the government, and more individuals become radicalized, and more terrorism happens. How many lives of soldiers would be risked and how much money would be spent for operations to 'capture' the terrorists in foreign nations? And will nations like Pakistan allow military (or law enforcement) operations on their soil by foreign govts to captu…

"You don't want to see drones operating in foreign nations? Use your energy helping NGO and the local govt overcome corruption, ignorance, and backbone shattering poverty. Give no space for terrorists to operate in."

Ah yes, this is the shit I just love about these arguments. Stop complaining about these things that kill thousands of innocent people. Your only appropriate action, according to some guy on the internet, is this utterly insane task he has made up. You are allowed to do that, but you're not allowed to object to drones killing people...

How? How does your brain get to this point? I'm just sitting here floored that I live in a country where a non-zero amount of people feel the way you do.

Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on

#420

Post by pjscott »

stiff wrote: post #299
jusben1369 wrote: post #112

We 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…

So drones are good because they are less bad?

For want of a better word.
Post reply on HN