Obama 'drone-warfare rulebook' condemned by human rights groups - Polidicks

Sometimes you need a scalpel, not a hammer. (too much hitman)

[QUOTE=Swilly;38594153]For christ's sake. The American government isn't even that fucking corrupt. It doesn't even have that much power. ITS SMALLER THAN WHAT IT USED TO BE.[/QUOTE] hmmm guess the wars in iraq and afghanistan dont count as corruption then? guess us selling arms to states that we know oppress their people doesnt count as corruption then? our reliance on goods produced by slaves in asia and latin america doesnt count as corruption then? our continued drug war that puts disproportionate pressure on minority groups to the benefit of a privatized prison system doesnt count as corruption then? our continued use of drones strikes that target heavily populated areas and kill innocent civilians doesnt count as corruption then?

[QUOTE=download;38593514]Since when has the US stoped anything because a small organisation complained?[/QUOTE] Bucky balls, kind of.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38594210]hmmm guess the wars in iraq and afghanistan dont count as corruption then? guess us selling arms to states that we know oppress their people doesnt count as corruption then? our reliance on goods produced by slaves in asia and latin america doesnt count as corruption then? our continued drug war that puts disproportionate pressure on minority groups to the benefit of a privatized prison system doesnt count as corruption then? our continued use of drones strikes that target heavily populated areas and kill innocent civilians doesnt count as corruption then?[/QUOTE] They count as showing our muscle to the Middle East as a way to keep gas prices down so the AMERICAN PEOPLE didn't have to pay as much. You dip shit, every action they've taken there is to secure oil, OUR NATION'S LIFE BLOOD, so that we don't feel the pain at the pump. Everyone relies on that near slave labor level, and they're living standards are actually rising there. There is more money for drug lords to keep it illegal than legal. And our strikes are after targets who are always in heavily populated areas to shield themselves like cowards.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593877]it isnt necessarily their fault, but the american government is an evil organization that doesnt have any concern for human life. i mean the policy is obviously at fault. im just pointing out how stupid and ignorant it is to call drone strikes "humane" because they don't pose risk to the operator.[/QUOTE] hahaha what the fuck

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38594111]if we lived in a world that didnt incentivize war and corruption then war and corruption would be the exception, rather than the rule it doesnt even matter what my idealized alternative is anyways. what matters is that we should be moving towards a more humane society. drone strikes are not humane and should not be part of any humane society so we should learn to live without them.[/QUOTE] But we don't live in that world. I get where you're coming from, and I agree, but as much as we want to move forward towards a more humane society we'll never get rid of war. War is inextricable with humanity, like or not. And if there is a chance to minimize the harm done to innocent civilians caught inbetween clashing armies then it should be taken. Like I said, it's preferable to have a few drones take out specific targets than having an entire army destroy the entire area and do who knows what to the civilian populace. Look at what happened in 2004 during the Iraq invasion, thousands of innocent lives could've been saved if they had used drones instead of bombarding the entire fucking country with literally everything they had.

What I'm basically saying is that the US government actually gives a massive fuck about our lives, but no one elses.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38594210]hmmm guess the wars in iraq and afghanistan dont count as corruption then?[/quote] No. The war in Iraq was an intelligence failure. George Bush did not lie to go to war. The intelligence community almost unanimously agreed that Saddam was developing WMDs. Saddam was even pushing forward that idea so as to scare away Iran from a possible invasion. The critical failure of the American government was not giving significant enough attention to the dissenting opinions. Air-force Intelligence, I&A, and the Department of Energy disagreed that Saddam was developing weapons, but when 13 out of the 16 organizations believe there are weapons being developed, then it's understandable why the dissenting opinion fell to the wayside. [quote]guess us selling arms to states that we know oppress their people doesnt count as corruption then?[/quote] This is actually a valid point. The United States shouldn't engage in arms trade to nations with human rights violations. Luckily US foreign policy has shifted away from this point of view since the end of the Cold War although there is no legal framework against it. [quote]our reliance on goods produced by slaves in asia and latin america doesnt count as corruption then?[/quote] Is it morally incorrect? Yes. Is it illegal in international law? No. The US isn't corrupt because it's simply engaging in legal trade practices. Don't like that answer? Petition to change the law. [quote]our continued drug war that puts disproportionate pressure on minority groups to the benefit of a privatized prison system doesnt count as corruption then?[/quote] I'll agree that privatized prisons and the drug war are pretty terrible. our continued use of drones strikes that target heavily populated areas and kill innocent civilians doesnt count as corruption then?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38594111]if we lived in a world that didnt incentivize war and corruption then war and corruption would be the exception, rather than the rule it doesnt even matter what my idealized alternative is anyways. what matters is that we should be moving towards a more humane society. drone strikes are not humane and should not be part of any humane society so we should learn to live without them.[/QUOTE] Woah man, that's like real deep. Maybe we should have rules for UAVs so we can make sure we are more humane and only kill the baddies that make the world bad.

Oh and Afghanistan was to try and capture/kill Bin Laden, a person that was behind the killing of thousands of Americans. Given what we know now, a war was probably a huge mistake, but it was a kneejerk reaction to the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Hindsight is always 20/20 edit: in response to the previous chain of comments.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;38593602]And drones have the capability of flying over a target for hours. This increases the chances of positive identification of a target and minimizes collateral damage.[/QUOTE] Your talking about fighting a guerrilla war with bombs there will -always- be collateral damage. [QUOTE=BlazeFresh;38593518]why does it matter which methods are used in an assassination? If they didn't use an unmanned drone they'd just find another way[/QUOTE] Because a bullet kills one person and bombs kill a lot more [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NhULIJ4ZPg[/media] Yawmen I see Injustice clearly affects you deeply, but try and be more informed about what your talking about. [QUOTE=Swilly;38594153]You're placing a blanket over the entire US government sayings it evil. You're calling every cop, fireman, teacher, federal and state level worker is only out to be evil corrupt assholes trying make our lives living hell.[/QUOTE] A lot of the time people don't know who to point the finger at, its easier to blame "the government" then becoming politically involved and finding out who's truly involved especially since anyone with half a brain whos corrupt would attempt to cover their tracks. [QUOTE=RayvenQ;38594099]Well maybe if the bad guys stopped being dirty rotten cheaters that hide in civilian populations....[/QUOTE] A... Are you fucking retarded? They live there they aren't hiding in civilian populations, they ARE civilians. [QUOTE=Edthefirst;38593602]And drones have the capability of flying over a target for hours. This increases the chances of positive identification of a target and minimizes collateral damage.[/QUOTE] they have the capability doesn't mean they will, most likely we fire when we have some kind of confirmation and don't wait a second longer, fuel costs money.

[QUOTE=Kanshi;38594494]Your talking about fighting a guerrilla war with bombs there will -always- be collateral damage. Because a bullet kills one person and bombs kill a lot more [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NhULIJ4ZPg[/media] Yawmen I see Injustice clearly affects you deeply, but try and be more informed about what your talking about. A lot of the time people don't know who to point the finger at, its easier to blame "the government" then becoming politically involved and finding out who's truly involved especially since anyone with half a brain whos corrupt would attempt to cover their tracks. A... Are you fucking retarded? They live there they aren't hiding in civilian populations, they ARE civilians. they have the capability doesn't mean they will, most likely we fire when we have some kind of confirmation and don't wait a second longer, fuel costs money.[/QUOTE] And that's why I'm arguing for the rulebook. I'm for drones, but not necessarily for the current methods used. So the way the current system works, the President needs to issue a finding. This is basically a set of guidelines on what to do. So in the case of CIA operational capacity, it might be pretty specific on the allowance of torture. The problem is a finding can be pretty general as well. In that event, a president may simply say, "use any means necessary to curb anti-American terrorist groups." The problem with such a finding is the lack of explicit boundaries. This means that we can use drones on anything as long as we have a feeling it will hurt terrorist groups. The problem is that we don't really know what the finding is. It's highly classified; although, we do have a pretty good indication on it being almost limitless. The increased numbers of drone strikes and increased numbers of casualties indicates a good chance that drone usage is almost unregulated. That's why a rulebook is necessary. It'll strengthen the foundations on what we are allowed to use targeted strikes against. [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] Also what's the whole point of that video? It's splicing together scenes of warfare with no background information whatsoever. It starts off with a cute little message in support of Ron Paul, and then it goes on to chastise the NATO no-fly zone over Libya which was an incredibly successful operation in support of human rights. I don't get it, what's the video want me to feel? Anger that war is a thing? I am supposed to see some sort of argument against the United States military even though there's literally no background on any of the images in the video? It's a pretty terrible video.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;38594611] That's why a rulebook is necessary. It'll strengthen the foundations on what we are allowed to use targeted strikes against.[/QUOTE] Who do you want to make the rules? And who will enforce them? [QUOTE=Edthefirst;38594611]It's a pretty terrible video.[/QUOTE] I know it is, for this I'm sorry, I kind of did it hastily without watching most of it. [QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;38594783]Tell that to the Taliban that will purposely leave behind women and kids to cover their retreat.[/QUOTE] How often does this happen? I've never heard of something like this, I hear most firefight conflicts go on in markets or villages in rural areas or along side roads. Usually women and children can be found in these places.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38593940]yea tell that to the collateral damage dude we shouldnt be using any method that has a risk of killing innocent people[/QUOTE] Tell that to the Taliban that will purposely leave behind women and kids to cover their retreat.

Argh! Why do drones have to be so [b][i]awesome[/i][/b]?

[QUOTE=Kanshi;38594732]Who do you want to make the rules? And who will enforce them? [/quote] Well in this case Obama is calling out towards lawmakers to help develop the rules, and that's how it should be done. Congress is in charge of making the rules. [quote]“One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making,” Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart in an appearance on “The Daily Show” on Oct. 18. [/quote] [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/world/white-house-presses-for-drone-rule-book.html?_r=0]Really good NYTimes article on this whole thing[/url] This sort of thing has been done in the past too. Drone strikes are a new thing, and that's why regulation is so weak, but some examples in the past exist of this very thing. Pre-1973 the CIA was unregulated by Congress. Sure Congress controlled the budget, but the CIA and the President did not have to inform Congress on any sort of activities. In 1973 there was a huge investigation into the CIA after some domestic spying operations were revealed to have taken place under Nixon. This eventually led to the Hughes-Ryan act of 1974. Then in 1980 the Intelligence Oversight act was passed that basically strengthened congressional oversight of the intelligence community. I trust congress to do the right thing, and it also allows citizens to get involved by addressing their congressmen. [quote]I know it is, for this I'm sorry, I kind of did it hastily without watching most of it.[/quote] Oh that's fine.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;38594323]Woah man, that's like real deep. Maybe we should have rules for UAVs so we can make sure we are more humane and only kill the baddies that make the world bad.[/QUOTE] Y'know, believing that there are "baddies that make the world bad" is something that makes you a disgusting person.

[QUOTE=The golden;38594321]He just snaps and loses it sometimes. Like a year ago he went on this rant about how it is his personal right to throw his trash and litter around city property.[/QUOTE] Are you serious? I thought Liberterians were supposed to be cold emotionless machines unable to to show human nature. [B]THIS WILL NOT DO![/B] Let's start the trial!

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;38593543]I wasn't aware there was a rule in the Geneva convention about killing people with remote controlled vehicles during WW2.[/QUOTE] Shit... [img]http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/5990/goliathhw3.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38595234]Shit... [img]http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/5990/goliathhw3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Or the flying drone the Germans tried during D-Day.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;38593543]Drones are more humane due to the fact that they're remote controlled, rather than risking a pilot or soldier to do it's job.[/QUOTE] I don't really see how the gesture of "we don't even care enough to even risk a life in order to end yours" is more humane. If anything that probably qualifies as less humane since less forethought needs to be given beforehand by the people who order the drone strike since they don't feel like much is at risk.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;38595383]I don't really see how the gesture of "we don't even care enough to even risk a life in order to end yours" is more humane. If anything that probably qualifies as less humane since less forethought needs to be given beforehand by the people who order the drone strike since they don't feel like much is at risk.[/QUOTE] Which is why they're rewriting the rules of engagement for use of drones?

[QUOTE=Swilly;38595417]Which is why they're rewriting the rules of engagement for use of drones?[/QUOTE] Why... even bother posting a reply? I was talking to somebody else and your reply really contributes nothing to what I was referring to.

[QUOTE=download;38593514]Since when has the US stoped anything because a small organisation complained?[/QUOTE] Prohibition.

[QUOTE=Xain777;38595600]Prohibition.[/QUOTE] That was a pretty widespread movement due to the spread of middle-class evangelicals that were fucking obsessed with telling other people what they could and could not do.

Drones are scary ass shit, I WANT a rule book so i know when i should start running.

I've always thought it somewhat silly for there to be rules in place for [I]killing people.[/I] I mean come on. You're [I]killing them.[/I]

It's more about the "when and where" aspect of drone strikes, not so much the principle of "how."

[QUOTE=Quark:;38595717]I've always thought it somewhat silly for there to be rules in place for [I]killing people.[/I] I mean come on. You're [I]killing them.[/I][/QUOTE] "If you break the rules, so will we. Also other countries are going to join in to stop you." Basically what it's there for. You can expect a (justified) response in kind if you're using stuff that is against the rules.

[QUOTE=download;38593514]Since when has the US stoped anything because a small organisation complained?[/QUOTE] it happens on a really regular basis actually.