|
Should the use of drones on US soil be allowed? (or anywhere else for that matter) (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LAdazeNYnights |
| quote: | Originally posted by billymadision
What if drones fly into people? Surely this is an argument against arming domestic drones. |
:wtf: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by djshire
One of the things that conspiracy theorists like to talk about is the CCTV system that Britain has in many cities. Some people say its meant to deter crime, help those in need, and make things safer. Other people say thats its used to monitor the citizens. |
Doesn't "monitoring the citizens" amounts to deterring crime, since there's little reason to believe the government would spend its time with the average Joe?
For one thing, any form of government is hopelessly outnumbered by its citizens, so it's not like they'll bother with those who don't pose any serious threat. That would require a godlike efficiency.
The main problem with drones is not that they can be used for evil - it's that they can be misused by fallible users. As a matter of fact, this is the main complaint concerning drones in Asia, and the army tends to be better trained for these scenarios. |
|
|
| itsamemario |
| quote: | Originally posted by djshire
So I, and all of us must ask ourselves: are we willing enough to give up some freedom for safety? And if so, how much freedom? |
Isn't that what Nineteen Eighty-four was all about? |
|
|
| Dykes_on_Jay |
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.” |
|
|
| OrangestO |
I'm surprised no one has brought up the Fifth Amendment, yet.
| quote: | | The specifics of the drone program have been carefully shielded at every turn. In January a federal judge ruled against The New York Times in its effort to compel the Justice Department to disclose the memo that provided the legal justification for the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen who died in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011, without any due process of law. (The death of an American at the other end of a drone seemed to prompt a new level of interest and scrutiny by the news media.) |
SOURCE |
|
|
| Pantone199c |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dykes_on_Jay
I think killing mass murderers is a good thing. |
Cool, what about the collateral damage? These things aren't snipers with clean kills. They blow up an area not just a person. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
the technology itself can be used in so many ways both commercial and military. The question isn't really about the technology but the moral questions they impose which are not new but different in that the technology allows certain things you just could not do with so little effort.
so yes. I can't see a reason why not.
Should governments be able to assassinate suspected terrorists under the guise of preventative war which ironically would be considered to be a criminal war crime done by anyone else. The rational between what the USA does and what a suicide bomber does is pretty much the same. Iran would be on equal moral footing sending drones to NYC and targeting suspected terrorists, a term oddly enough which has not been ratified by the USA or Israel, as the definition which every nation agrees upon would make USA and their cohorts by definition terrorists.
In terms of practicality, i imagine the drones are making the situation worse. But it isn't the technology that is to blame. I can't see how anyone would be more keen on having soldiers killed as opposed to a drone which is relatively cheap. As to whether the war is just , that is another matter altogether. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| There are numerous metropolitan police forces around the US that have their own drones. These are not CIA-operated predator drones sent about to fly through the streets with Hellfire missiles, ready to muddy some UN sanctions. |
|
|
| OrangestO |
Pandora's box has been opened.
Just because these drones aren't armed right now, doesn't mean they won't be in the future.
Just because these drones are used for intelligence purposes right now, doesn't mean they won't be used against the citizenry in the future.
Just because...
Just because...
Just because...
And then those of us who are still alive in 2050 will wake up to blue skies filled with metal flies.
No more police beatings. Drone assassinations are the future. |
|
|
| itsamemario |
| Assassination is such an ugly word, it carries too many negative connotations. I think Drone Assisted Take-outs is the preferred term at the moment. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by OrangestO
Pandora's box has been opened.
Just because these drones aren't armed right now, doesn't mean they won't be in the future.
Just because these drones are used for intelligence purposes right now, doesn't mean they won't be used against the citizenry in the future.
Just because...
Just because...
Just because...
And then those of us who are still alive in 2050 will wake up to blue skies filled with metal flies.
No more police beatings. Drone assassinations are the future. |
the problem with that sort of logic is that you could apply it to any aspect of life.
The army could turn on us at any second.
Police could start arresting people and putting everyone in concentration camps.
What if the power grids go out and a bunch of black people escape from San Quentin and trap music is the only music you will ever hear for the rest of your life. That and they will rape everyone that isn't hispanic.
From the wooden stick , to the nuke, at what point are you going to say , nawww, see that was fine but this isn't.
you can't. The technology will happen. The technology is never the issue. Pandoras box has not been opened. There is nothing remotely new. Only an improvement. The issues are relatively the same as they have been for arguably a few hundred years. Replace drones with infantry. how easy it is to kill when you are the captain safe in your bunker away from the front .
I have issue with actual drones tho. The 2 legged type. I suppose idiocy is not a choice. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by OrangestO
Pandora's box has been opened.
Just because these drones aren't armed right now, doesn't mean they won't be in the future.
Just because these drones are used for intelligence purposes right now, doesn't mean they won't be used against the citizenry in the future.
Just because...
Just because...
Just because...
And then those of us who are still alive in 2050 will wake up to blue skies filled with metal flies.
No more police beatings. Drone assassinations are the future. |
Oh, no! To the bunker!
Really though, we've been able to get into that bunker's air intake for over 20 years:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/s...nted=all&src=pm
Like enydo said, "drone" is just a scary buzzword. In fact, speaking of the buzz, that's likely what's causing the greatest widespread damage; the psychological cost of a very loud aircraft almost constantly patrolling around a village in south Pakistan has created a panopticon for the people there. I'm certain they view their "security" very favourably when they can't even sleep at night, especially knowing their 14 year-old son is in the same house. |
|
|
|
|
