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

The Drone Papers

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 226 posts

Re: The Drone Papers

#81

Post by TeMPOraL »

korisnik wrote: post #51
rhino369 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Military Aged Males are considered enemy combatants. Effectively that means all males ages 18-49 are considered enemy combatants. Since you're guilty by association, your age makes you a target. You are conflating what the US considers enemies before targeting and after a strike. The US doesn't just bomb any random male 18-49. But when the US does target what it thinks is a legitimate target, it counts any unknown m…

> it counts any unknown males killed in the strike as enemy. It doesn't use that assumption to do the strike. Imagine for a moment that someone (be it some foreign agency, US police, army or whoever) did the same in America, to American citizens . Would you be outraged by your explanation? "Hey, it's not like they're targetting them specifically. They're just deciding that they were all enemy combatants post-factum .…

You should be, but for a different reason than if they were targeting those people specifically. Both are atrocities, but precision is very important in such discussions, otherwise we will turn into an angry mob.

Re: The Drone Papers

#82

Post by mcphilip »

Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Arent there some legitimate scenarios where U.S. and Chinese national security interests are in opposition?

Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?

Re: The Drone Papers

#83

Post by e12e »

yuvadam wrote: post #2

There are a few interesting anecdotes about this huge story - This is the same leak that Glenn Greenwald describes to Edward Snowden in Moscow (-> -> -> -> POTUS), meaning this story has been in the making for at least 1.5 years. Second, this quality and quantity of leaks is incredible and can only be attributed to a news organization that takes security as a paramount consideration, setting up proper secure channels…

Are you sure these are the same documents/from the same source? (As far as I recall, those were from a drone pilot, that's done a few tv appearances already?). Or that was my impression, anyway.

[Bad form to comment before I've read the story, but just wanted a clarification - if this was an assumption or something that's been stated clearly by one of the people involved?]

Re: The Drone Papers

#84

Post by devit »

snake_plissken wrote: post #55

For me the most grave offense of our current president was taking out Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011. I understand he was not a good individual, by any means, but he was an American citizen which entitled him to all of the protections afforded under The Constitution. Programs like these are what undermines any legitimacy our country has left.

Doesn't U.S. law offer any recourse in this case?

Re: The Drone Papers

#85

Post by ethbro »

korisnik wrote: post #51
rhino369 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Military Aged Males are considered enemy combatants. Effectively that means all males ages 18-49 are considered enemy combatants. Since you're guilty by association, your age makes you a target. You are conflating what the US considers enemies before targeting and after a strike. The US doesn't just bomb any random male 18-49. But when the US does target what it thinks is a legitimate target, it counts any unknown m…

> it counts any unknown males killed in the strike as enemy. It doesn't use that assumption to do the strike. Imagine for a moment that someone (be it some foreign agency, US police, army or whoever) did the same in America, to American citizens . Would you be outraged by your explanation? "Hey, it's not like they're targetting them specifically. They're just deciding that they were all enemy combatants post-factum .…

This analogy also relies on the assumption that the US was currently fighting a military insurgency or civil war.

Re: The Drone Papers

#86

Post by bediger4000 »

rhino369 wrote: post #31
praptak wrote: post #12

Hm. So what stops US from targeted killings in China? Russia? Europe? Only the probable retaliation?

Motive is the big reason. It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. America is killing people that American believes they are at war with. Hell, America is killing people who believe themselves to be at war with America. But drones only work when you have total air supremacy. Any halfway decent airforce can protect against the huge drones America fires missiles from.

It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain.

How do we know this, again? The folks who have said this are legally bound not to say anything else. So they're not particularly believable. The Snowden revelations about PetroBras hacking somewhat (but not totally, admittedly) makes me very suspicious that network penetration goes on for petty economic gain. Why wouldn't that leak into drone strikes?

Re: The Drone Papers

#87

Post by TeMPOraL »

marcosdumay wrote: post #79
TeMPOraL wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some alternatives to voting that come to my mind: - Figure out the real reason why the US is at war with "terrorism", and do everything to help develop and popularize technology that will make that reason obsolete. Is it because of oil? Then become a Tesla evangelist. - Keep talking, writing, shouting about the issue, shaming and blaming everyone even tangentially related to drone strikes. It's utterly ridiculous tha…

> If you know anyone over at Hollywood, pitch for turning the problem into a movie. That was the last RoboCop. Seems that nobody cared enough to even recognize the problem.

That was too indirect. I didn't even think of the connection until you brought it up. It needs to be straightforward. Bad US Government droning the good guys audience symphatizes with. Direct enough that media would call it "controversial".

Re: The Drone Papers

#88

Post by e12e »

mcphilip wrote: post #82

Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Arent there some legitimate scenarios where U.S. and Chinese national security interests are in opposition? Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?

Superior nuclear capability? (And no, I don't think this sets a great precedent. Then again, it's not really something new to perform war crimes against "3rd world nations" -- but it does seem horribly out of place in our (thankfully) more educated times (as in, all of us are far more educated now, than previously)).

The worst part, is that with all three big players lobbying warheads around in Syria, we might be closer to a third world war than we've ever been before.

Re: The Drone Papers

#89

Post by yuvadam »

rhino369 wrote: post #31
praptak wrote: post #12

Hm. So what stops US from targeted killings in China? Russia? Europe? Only the probable retaliation?

Motive is the big reason. It's not like America is killing people for fun or some petty economic gain. America is killing people that American believes they are at war with. Hell, America is killing people who believe themselves to be at war with America. But drones only work when you have total air supremacy. Any halfway decent airforce can protect against the huge drones America fires missiles from.

There is no such thing as a war between a country and a person.

Re: The Drone Papers

#90

Post by DominikR »

mcphilip wrote: post #82

Logically, if the U.S. feels justified in targeted drone strikes against legitimate threats to national security, what's to stop China or Russia from doing the same? Arent there some legitimate scenarios where U.S. and Chinese national security interests are in opposition? Who has the "moral high ground", if such a thing exists, in such cases?

One legitimate scenario is the US support for Jihadist organizations that operate all around the globe including in China. (Uyghur region)

I think it is pretty clear who has the moral high ground on this one. For me this aspect of US foreign policy is by far the most disgusting, even more than the assassinations.

You can see for yourself how the US demands from Russia to stop their military campaign in Syria now that the Jihadi groups are losing ground.

Post reply on HN