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

241–250 of 491 posts

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

#241

Post by alextingle »

kevinpet wrote: post #171
macspoofing wrote: post #86

The 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?…

> During war...

Except the US isn't at war with any of the countries where these drone strikes are taking place.

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

#242

Post by sliverstorm »

fit2rule wrote: post #220
sliverstorm wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the long-term goal should be education. No, we can't bomb them with textbooks. When women are killed for trying to get an education, perhaps more drastic action than a better water pump for farming is merited.

When all you know about a country is based on what you have been told by those who will profit from your point of view being skewed, there is no hope. Fact: Women are killed in the USA, too. Fact: the USA has its share of militant religious fanatics, too. Are we going to bomb the USA because of this fact?

Ok, so why should I believe what you tell me? How do I know you don't stand to profit from skewing my point of view?

If you can't trust what anyone tells you about foreign events, it's too late. The voting public does not have time to travel to Yemen, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, China, and every other country on the globe to develop personally informed opinions.

Fact: Women are killed in the USA, too

For attending school?

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

#243

Post by marcosdumay »

wreegab wrote: post #166
neals wrote: post #11

Earlier 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?

> "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?" There is something ironic in there.

There is also a prisioner's dilema in there. That's the entire problem.

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

#244

Post by mark_l_watson »

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…

Unbelievable that you seem to have such a hard calloused view of civilian casualties. Curious: what do you do for a living?

The lies of omission by the US government in reporting any data on civilian casualties tells the real story, in my opinion. Drones are probably the sickest manifestation of the US Department of War. I used to be a defense contractor a few decades ago and was mostly proud of what I did, but what we are doing now it all seems so very wrong.

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

#245

Post by ItendToDisagree »

mikeash wrote: post #240
ItendToDisagree wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) It is clearly labeled as an opinion piece (First person abounds: I saw, I wish, I knew)... If you are looking for informative, unbiased, hard hitting journalism in an opinion piece you may be looking in the wrong place. 2) Decisions are always hard, even with perfect resolution/clarity, but adding additional handicaps (pixelation) seems like relevant information... I don't see how that is 'counterpoint' in any way…

1) seems like the pertinent disagreement, here. OK, fine, it's an opinion piece, and we shouldn't expect any sort of actual information from such a thing. Why, then, are we posting and upvoting such crap? Why is anybody defending it?

Agreed and agreed. The only reason I chimed in is because labeling an opinion piece as 'manipulation' seems pretty suspect. That is tantamount to saying "anyone who has an opinion I disagree with is manipulating me."

Article really shouldn't be on HN in the first place imo.

Edit: Spelling... It's hard.

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

#246

Post by mark_l_watson »

shiven wrote: post #131
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…

War is hell. --> War is a racket.[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

I agree, but to be a little more precise: throughout history the rich/elites have lied to civilian populations so they would go along with money making war activities.

What is sad now in the USA is that there are very few politicians who speak the truth and very few news outlets that don't just cooperate in the propaganda.

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

#247

Post by stcredzero »

> One example comes to mind: "The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon?"

This is precisely what the Oculus Rift folks and the people working on the helmet that goes with the F-35 are working against. Biological senses are freaking amazing. The outliers on the upper end of the scale are downright incredible. Synthetic substitutes need to be really well engineered to be comparable or surpass them. (Which is precisely what happened with RADAR. Did you know that modern radio telescopes developed from technology we used to eavesdrop on Soviet EM emissions reflected off the moon? Did you know that the energy gathered by all of the radio telescopes, ever, is less than that of a single snowflake hitting the ground?)

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

#248

Post by marcosdumay »

fit2rule wrote: post #190
Killah911 wrote: post #58

I've worked on building some AI for drones for the US, and I'm fairly certain that advents in new technologies will mitigate most of the concerns in the article. It will make for a seriously scary new world, where devices like this exist at massive scale. Dictatorships will be even more brutal, and oppressors, even more oppressive. The sociopath in control of these machines will no longer have to worry about someone…

>Having the time to reflect on the serious inequities in the world that you've just been witness to can't easily be swept under the rug. If there is hope, it lies in the proles.

I'm sure there is something at the end of 1984 (the book) that applies here.

But, anyway, not exatly for everybody but those things will become cheap someday, up to the point that a person can build one, and stay as lethal. If that threatens us, it also threatens the people controlling today's drones.

(And, just to be clear, I'm making no moral judgment here.)

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

#249

Post by aestra »

DominikR wrote: post #82
dreamfactory wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual argument is that such people 'occur naturally' and the army at least directs their activities outwards (it forms the distinction between grunt and officer class in the forces). I don't agree with the premise but it's a nature vs nurture question.

And what should we do with such people if we have no wars where we can direct their activities to? Randomly start wars just to keep them occupied with something? I'm pretty sure that those people are actually very rare and that most people that join the military do it because of patriotism and propaganda. Most soldiers probably don't know what they will be facing and how it will affect them in a negative way, which w…

In my experience the vast majority of people join the military for job opportunities and benefits. I know more military members than average I would say. My husband and many of my friends being active duty, my father, grandfather, some friends, and the majority of my uncles being vets.

The military doesn’t commit suicide at a significantly higher rate than the general population.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/02/02/but-there...

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

#250

Post by yummyfajitas »

ItendToDisagree wrote: post #235
yummyfajitas wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further action on the part of the USA will always increase the death toll, like it did in Kosovo? And staying out of things will always reduce deaths, like in Rwanda? I don't pretend to have the answer in the case of Syria, and I'm not advocating anything one way or another. I'm just pointing out that your model of the world doesn't appear to predict the past, let alone the future.

How would intervening in Rawanda have saved lives exactly? Go in and arm the Tutsi's? Start killing Hutus? It is probable that intervention would have caused more casualties (including to US forces). Kosovo is also disputed even in terms of actual casualties, let alone projected casualties, and is probably not a good case for intervention. I fully agree there is not a good answer either way (syria included)... Just p…

How would intervening in Rawanda have saved lives exactly? Go in and arm the Tutsi's?

A group of armed Tutsi's is ultimately what ended the Rwandan genocide. So yes, that likely would have worked well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Rwandan_Patrio...

Post reply on HN