The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:09 pm UTC

To get back on topic, I agree with edgar here. Oversight is key because there are all kinds of Jack Bauer-esque situations where we have to do crazy shit to get the job done. But they're all traps that the hawks think up to trick us into allowing stupid shit like having no oversight on extrajudicial killings. There's various scenarios where it's ok to kill a guy, even if he's at a funeral doing nothing dangerous right now. You can even justify killing a bunch of civilians or launching nuclear weapons at them, but the current justification is "he's a terrorists, trust me; I know secret stuff."

Also, who here disagrees? Just wanna make sure I'm not preaching to the choir.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:16 am UTC

Роберт wrote:If you think it had nothing to do with your post, I don't even know where to start explaining it to you. Your analogy was bad and you should feel bad. My analogy was terrible, yes, because it was not meant to be a great analogy, it was just meant to be better than yours.

It succeeded at that.


The point of my analogy was to show that not all legitimate killings have to be related to a judicial process (that is, as judicial punishment for the commission of a "crime"). Feel free to show how my analogy failed to do that, or how your attempt at an analogy was anywhere close to being relevant to my point.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:40 am UTC

sardia wrote:To get back on topic, I agree with edgar here. Oversight is key because there are all kinds of Jack Bauer-esque situations where we have to do crazy shit to get the job done. But they're all traps that the hawks think up to trick us into allowing stupid shit like having no oversight on extrajudicial killings. There's various scenarios where it's ok to kill a guy, even if he's at a funeral doing nothing dangerous right now. You can even justify killing a bunch of civilians or launching nuclear weapons at them, but the current justification is "he's a terrorists, trust me; I know secret stuff."

Also, who here disagrees? Just wanna make sure I'm not preaching to the choir.


There is oversight. That's what the IG and the president are doing. Hell, the intelligence committee is for this too, yes?

I mean, from some of the "the president is authorizing drone strikes" stuff, you'd think the president is personally listing off names of people he dislikes who then die. Hah. President's a busy job. He has people for that. If he's personally signing off on each drone strike, it's because he wants to oversee it, not because he's initiating each one entirely solo.

Public information /= oversight. You can definitely have non-public oversight.


I'm going to just ignore the ludicrous hacker/bank robber/whatever analogies. They're all bad, and illustrate precisely why I'm not a fan of arguing by analogy.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Qaanol » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:48 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:The point of my analogy was to show that not all legitimate killings have to be related to a judicial process (that is, as judicial punishment for the commission of a "crime"). Feel free to show how my analogy failed to do that, or how your attempt at an analogy was anywhere close to being relevant to my point.

Yes, self-defense qualifies. The onus falls on the person claiming self-defense to prove that lethal force was warranted. If George Zimmerman showed up in court and said, “It was totally self-defense. The evidence is secret and I can’t divulge it to you though.” The judge and jury would throw the book at him.

Similarly, the onus falls on the United States government to prove that the people it kills are enemy combatants who posed a clear and present danger. That necessitates public information.

Tyndmyr wrote:Public information /= oversight. You can definitely have non-public oversight.

Not in a representative democracy you can’t. The people doing the overseeing are elected officials, and we get to oversee them. We, the people, need to know what and why our government is doing, so that we can kick out of office the people who authorize it to do Bad Things™.
wee free kings

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:57 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:
yoni45 wrote:The point of my analogy was to show that not all legitimate killings have to be related to a judicial process (that is, as judicial punishment for the commission of a "crime"). Feel free to show how my analogy failed to do that, or how your attempt at an analogy was anywhere close to being relevant to my point.

Yes, self-defense qualifies. The onus falls on the person claiming self-defense to prove that lethal force was warranted. If George Zimmerman showed up in court and said, “It was totally self-defense. The evidence is secret and I can’t divulge it to you though.” The judge and jury would throw the book at him.

Similarly, the onus falls on the United States government to prove that the people it kills are enemy combatants who posed a clear and present danger. That necessitates public information.


Such a standard of proof has never been used. Hell, killing enemy combatants who are NOT a present danger, such as guys sleeping in their base, is a pretty normal historical thing.

Again, ya'll are trying to apply the concepts of crime to militaries. They work on kind of a different scale and in a different way.

Tyndmyr wrote:Public information /= oversight. You can definitely have non-public oversight.

Not in a representative democracy you can’t. The people doing the overseeing are elected officials, and we get to oversee them. We, the people, need to know what and why our government is doing, so that we can kick out of office the people who authorize it to do Bad Things™.


By that logic, you can't have any secrets. Thats wildly impractical.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:25 am UTC

Keeping secrets is important, but another important thing is the checks and balances. Right now, all the decisions lie within the executive branch. This means your oversight is the same as asking them to selfpolice. We should expect self-policing AND oversight from another branch of congress. This is on top of whatever dirt journalist and whistle-blowers can dig up.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:27 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:Yes, self-defense qualifies. The onus falls on the person claiming self-defense to prove that lethal force was warranted. If George Zimmerman showed up in court and said, “It was totally self-defense. The evidence is secret and I can’t divulge it to you though.” The judge and jury would throw the book at him.

Similarly, the onus falls on the United States government to prove that the people it kills are enemy combatants who posed a clear and present danger. That necessitates public information.


Perhaps, but that's beyond the scope of my point or my analogy, but it looks like you agree with the point made and the analogy used in making it.

Your requirements are only clear cut so far as there's no conflicting requirements -- unfortunately complete transparency conflicts with maximal efficacy. While that doesn't mean we should give the government to do whatever they want without any accountability, I'd also question the prudence of requiring complete transparency to the point of crippling certain operations.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:30 am UTC

Keeping secrets is not incompatible with judicial oversight.

It is also possible to reveal specifics of how targets are chosen and vetted without revealing information regarding specific targets.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:36 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Keeping secrets is not incompatible with judicial oversight.

It is also possible to reveal specifics of how targets are chosen and vetted without revealing information regarding specific targets.


That doesn't mean much without being able to assess whether the relevant processes are actually being followed though...?
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:46 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Correct, I'd assumed we were both talking about this. It's a situation that wouldn't have been(and hasn't been) treated markedly different in past wars. It's not something that's a threat to the average US Citizen.


Err... domestic law and border enforcement agencies already use drones in US airspace for surveillance work, and many more agencies are clamouring to get them. Armed military drones are also regularly tested in civilian airspace. It's not so far outside the realm of possibility as you might imagine. Give it five years.

Tyndmyr wrote:Such a standard of proof has never been used. Hell, killing enemy combatants who are NOT a present danger, such as guys sleeping in their base, is a pretty normal historical thing.


With countries that you aren't at war with, no, it really isn't. Calling someone an "enemy combatant" when they are neither part of a country at war with you nor engaged in combat with you in any way is duplicitous.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby EdgarJPublius » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:03 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:Keeping secrets is not incompatible with judicial oversight.

It is also possible to reveal specifics of how targets are chosen and vetted without revealing information regarding specific targets.


That doesn't mean much without being able to assess whether the relevant processes are actually being followed though...?



Revealing the procedure would be a good start at least. And independent, judicial oversight should go a long way toward keeping everyone more-or-less honest.

Once we have at least that baseline, we might consider further steps, such as limited declassification of less sensitive information that shows proper procedure is being followed.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:31 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Correct, I'd assumed we were both talking about this. It's a situation that wouldn't have been(and hasn't been) treated markedly different in past wars. It's not something that's a threat to the average US Citizen.


Err... domestic law and border enforcement agencies already use drones in US airspace for surveillance work, and many more agencies are clamouring to get them. Armed military drones are also regularly tested in civilian airspace. It's not so far outside the realm of possibility as you might imagine. Give it five years.

Tyndmyr wrote:Such a standard of proof has never been used. Hell, killing enemy combatants who are NOT a present danger, such as guys sleeping in their base, is a pretty normal historical thing.


With countries that you aren't at war with, no, it really isn't. Calling someone an "enemy combatant" when they are neither part of a country at war with you nor engaged in combat with you in any way is duplicitous.

That's quite a stretch. The closest application for armed drones would be the war on drugs. It be conceivable to arm drones to take out drug shipments or gangs related to it, but that would ruin the evidence gathering part. So surveillance does not equal to drone strikes.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:53 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:With countries that you aren't at war with, no, it really isn't. Calling someone an "enemy combatant" when they are neither part of a country at war with you nor engaged in combat with you in any way is duplicitous.


Is it really duplicitous if the practical implications are no different than one in which a country is at war with you? I mean, you've got a group dedicated to waging war against you -- is there any practical difference as to whether they're an official country?

The only such difference I can imagine is that if the group is in a given country, then it's that country's prerogative to deal with it, but if the group is acting out of areas out of reach of that country (and especially if it's done with that country's approval), I don't know that the differences here are anything more than in name...
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:21 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:With countries that you aren't at war with, no, it really isn't. Calling someone an "enemy combatant" when they are neither part of a country at war with you nor engaged in combat with you in any way is duplicitous.


Is it really duplicitous if the practical implications are no different than one in which a country is at war with you? I mean, you've got a group dedicated to waging war against you -- is there any practical difference as to whether they're an official country?

The only such difference I can imagine is that if the group is in a given country, then it's that country's prerogative to deal with it, but if the group is acting out of areas out of reach of that country (and especially if it's done with that country's approval), I don't know that the differences here are anything more than in name...

Uh... We don't wage war like we wage counterinsurgency. Don't let the misnomer War on Terrorism fool you, that's just a marketing tactic that the Bush administration thought up to gin up support. Do you consider the drug lords as being at war with us? They got thousands of heavily armed soldiers, and billions in cash, and they penetrate our border with ease.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:50 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Again, ya'll are trying to apply the concepts of crime to militaries. They work on kind of a different scale and in a different way.
Why do you think civilians attacking civilians should be regulated by the military? Terrorism is a crime, and it's being committed by civilians against civilians. Applying civilian judicial process is the thing that should be done in that case. Using a military justification for killing someone suspected of terrorism is ludicrous.
Tyndmyr wrote:There is oversight. That's what the IG and the president are doing. Hell, the intelligence committee is for this too, yes?
Oversight by your own boss isn't oversight, it's called doing your job correctly. The people who are asking for oversight are doing so because killing civilians is something that the Judicial Branch is allowed to do, and the Executive Branch is not. So it follows that if the Exectutive Branch wanted to start executing civilians, the very least they could do would be to tell a judge what the heck is going on.
yoni45 wrote:These people are being killed for being enemy combatants, not for being criminals.
Hey, look, another made up George Bush word. These people aren't enemy combatants because that is a made up word with no meaning. It's the mystical third category of people we can torture and murder. They don't exist. These people are criminals.
yoni45 wrote:I feel like this whole conversation regarding "crimes" is way off the path of relevance.
Speaking of which, why did you quote "crimes"? Do you really not think that terrorism is a crime?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:28 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Роберт wrote:If you think it had nothing to do with your post, I don't even know where to start explaining it to you. Your analogy was bad and you should feel bad. My analogy was terrible, yes, because it was not meant to be a great analogy, it was just meant to be better than yours.

It succeeded at that.


The point of my analogy was to show that not all legitimate killings have to be related to a judicial process (that is, as judicial punishment for the commission of a "crime"). Feel free to show how my analogy failed to do that, or how your attempt at an analogy was anywhere close to being relevant to my point.

Look, just because it's okay for me too shoot someone who invaded my home with a deadly weapon doesn't mean it's okay for me to send a robot over to someone else's house and have it shoot them, regardless of how strongly I suspect that they are responsible for killing my mom last year or how strongly I suspect that they plan to kill me soon.

Your analogy was terrible and your refusal to admit it terrifies me. Extrajudicial killings not for self-defense or in the context of war are bad. Expanding the concept of war to mean that any male over 18 is assumed to be a soldier, and then killing them claiming it's war, is bad. The fact that self-defense is okay doesn't change this.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

MarkSmash
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:16 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby MarkSmash » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:To get back on topic, I agree with edgar here. Oversight is key because there are all kinds of Jack Bauer-esque situations where we have to do crazy shit to get the job done. But they're all traps that the hawks think up to trick us into allowing stupid shit like having no oversight on extrajudicial killings. There's various scenarios where it's ok to kill a guy, even if he's at a funeral doing nothing dangerous right now. You can even justify killing a bunch of civilians or launching nuclear weapons at them, but the current justification is "he's a terrorists, trust me; I know secret stuff."

Also, who here disagrees? Just wanna make sure I'm not preaching to the choir.


Well, we are dealing with two separate questions here: the process of extra judicial killing by the United States and the use of UAV's as tools of assasination.

With respect to the process of extra judicial killing by the United States, we need to know how the process works, what gaps there are with respect to accountability and oversight, etc., and make improvements. Make no mistake, however, extra judicial killings by the United States will continue regardless of whatever hand wringing we do on this thread. And because the United States has access to UAV technology, this actually might be a 'good' thing.

The United States has been grappling with how to fight non-state enemies since the car bomb attack on a US Marine Barracks in Beirut in the 80's. When it comes to state vs state conflict, the United States is very effective. However, when the United States tries to use these tactics to fight non-state enemies, you get major overkill and destabilization: invade Afghanistan and Iraq as a way of getting Al Quieda.

Enter the UAV assassins. They are relatively inexpensive. They limit casualties in a manner unknown by any other weapons system. They don't require on the ground support in potentially hostile foreign countries. Attacks can be made at virtually zero risk to American soldiers. They can be operated from virtually any location on the planet so there's no need to pass this technology to potentially unstable allies (i.e. the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80's -- the precursor to Al Quieda today). There is plausible deniability: a rocket attack from a ground location is virtually indistinguishable from a UAV rocket attack, a mine or even a gas leak.

Best of all, the United States doesn't need to declare war to use them.

The fact that the United States miliatary is the only power using this technology today, it should be fairly easy to follow the line of accountability from the attack site (assuming decent forensics), to the UAV on station, to the operator, to the commanding officer to the group that ordered the attack.

On the down side, there is still fairly major damage to life and property of civilians in the area of the attack. If there is no system of reparation for these people, they may be radicalized against the United States. If for every terrorist killed by a UAV assassination results in 10 new recruits, we can expect the situation to become worse, not only for US military, but for any US civilians on the ground months or years after the attack. Violence against Americans abroad will likely increase if UAV assasinations continue in an unbridled fashion.

On the flip side, because the use of UAV assassins is not occuring during a declared war, the possibility that use of the UAV's may be considered criminal -- from my understanding, all UAV attacks to date are backed up by a Presidential Executive Order. Without this back up, or some form of oversight, UAV attacks would be tantamount to murder, involuntary manslaughter or, at the very least, vandalism and disturbing the peace.

To conclude: extra judicial killing by the United States will continue. The most effective means to attack non-state enemies is the use of UAV assassins. UAV attacks carry the danger of fanning anti-US sentiment and attacks against US targets of opportunity: namely, Americans travelling abroad. This danger is exacerbated if UAV attacks are, or perceived to be, undertaken without proper oversight and care to minimize casualties and to mitigate unintended harm.

Added:

Further questions:

1. How long will it be before there is a UAV assassination on U.S. soil? Is a Timothy McVeigh tantamount to an Osama Bin Laden?

2. What would happen if UAV assassin technology were to be placed in the hands of another group, say Israel or a private multinational corporation? What safeguards are in place to ensure that this technology doesn't proliferate?

3. Are there individuals that will remain off the kill list? Heads of state, for example?

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:15 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Your analogy was terrible and your refusal to admit it terrifies me. Extrajudicial killings not for self-defense or in the context of war are bad. Expanding the concept of war to mean that any male over 18 is assumed to be a soldier, and then killing them claiming it's war, is bad. The fact that self-defense is okay doesn't change this.


Your complete failure to comprehend my analogy or the point drawn from my analogy is what should terrify you, especially since I explicitly clarified those for you in my last post. Hint: my analogy was never used to expand the concept of war to mean that any male over 18 is assumed to be a soldier, nor was it used to justify a blanket allowance for killing them. In fact, I never passed any judgment on whether these practices are okay overall.

Heisenberg wrote:Speaking of which, why did you quote "crimes"? Do you really not think that terrorism is a crime?


Unrelated question that you're free not to answer: how old are you?
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:33 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Роберт wrote:Your analogy was terrible and your refusal to admit it terrifies me. Extrajudicial killings not for self-defense or in the context of war are bad. Expanding the concept of war to mean that any male over 18 is assumed to be a soldier, and then killing them claiming it's war, is bad. The fact that self-defense is okay doesn't change this.


Your complete failure to comprehend my analogy or the point drawn from my analogy is what should terrify you, especially since I explicitly clarified those for you in my last post. [The point of my analogy was to show that not all legitimate killings have to be related to a judicial process (that is, as judicial punishment for the commission of a "crime"). Feel free to show how my analogy failed to do that, or how your attempt at an analogy was anywhere close to being relevant to my point.
] Hint: my analogy was never used to expand the concept of war to mean that any male over 18 is assumed to be a soldier, nor was it used to justify a blanket allowance for killing them. In fact, I never passed any judgment on whether these practices are okay overall.
I really don't get where you think I didn't get the point of your analogy. I did. That's why I said it was dumb. It's like if we were talking about how the government shouldn't outlaw consensual sex between adults, and you said (TRIGGER)"
Spoiler:
but we're fine with making raping children illegal, so there's some cases where it's okay to legislate sexual activity.
"
We all know that. Nobody cares because it's not relevant. Yes, sometimes extrajudicial killings are okay - self defense being an example (in your analogy, a bank robber with a gun). Nobody cares, because that's not what the controversy is over. Bringing it up is just idiotic.

The controversy is over assassinations and extra-judicial killings that have no public transparency and are not in the clear-cut context of war or self-defense.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:03 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I really don't get where you think I didn't get the point of your analogy.


Probably because, in the process of attacking my analogy, you ascribed to my analogy a point I never made.

Роберт wrote:We all know that. Nobody cares because it's not relevant.


I don't know who "we" are, but clearly not everyone here knows "that", since plenty of people are using a criminal framework to question justification of these actions. And whether or not a criminal framework is appropriate is obviously relevant when said framework is being used.

Edit: Oh, and look at that, the post I responded to just happened to be one that did exactly that -- what a coincidence.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:15 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Роберт wrote:I really don't get where you think I didn't get the point of your analogy.


Probably because, in the process of attacking my analogy, you ascribed to my analogy a point I never made.
Fascinating. Can you elaborate? What point did you not make that I said you did?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:27 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Fascinating. Can you elaborate? What point did you not make that I said you did?


Every point you raised against my analogy?

Such as: "The fact that self-defense is okay doesn't change this" -- my analogy and my point never made any claims as to whether self-defense being okay changes anything.

Or: "Look, just because it's okay for me too shoot someone who invaded my home with a deadly weapon doesn't mean it's okay for me to send a robot over to someone else's house and have it shoot them" -- my analogy and my point never claimed any of that is okay.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:44 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Роберт wrote:Fascinating. Can you elaborate? What point did you not make that I said you did?


Every point you raised against my analogy?

Such as: "The fact that self-defense is okay doesn't change this" -- my analogy and my point never made any claims as to whether self-defense being okay changes anything.

Or: "Look, just because it's okay for me too shoot someone who invaded my home with a deadly weapon doesn't mean it's okay for me to send a robot over to someone else's house and have it shoot them" -- my analogy and my point never claimed any of that is okay.

Obviously you don't think it's okay to have your robot invade someone else's house and shoot them. And you never did an analogy about robots with guns or dinosaurs with guns.

I never said you made the point "we should allow people to have robots invade other people's homes and shoot them". So...

Here's the point you DID make:
yoni45 wrote:I feel like this whole conversation regarding "crimes" is way off the path of relevance. These people are being killed for being enemy combatants, not for being criminals. There's no requirement for a trial, because they're not being killed for breaking any laws. I mean, yeah, they may also be breaking laws and if captured alive may be tried for those laws, but if a bank robber lunges at a police officer and gets shot and killed, they're not being executed for robbing a bank. In fact, they're not even being executed for the crime of assaulting a police officer (such a crime does not carry a death penalty afaik). They're not being executed at all -- they're being neutralized using the best available means because they are a direct and immediate threat to the wellbeing of others.


Now, that analogy was bad because the example given was showing a killing done in self defense. If you'll note here:
yoni45 wrote:Such as: "The fact that self-defense is okay doesn't change this" -- my analogy and my point never made any claims as to whether self-defense being okay changes anything.

So, a better analogy would be one that removed the "self-defense" portion out of the analogy. So, someone actively robbing a bank, but not in the process of assaulting anyone. This way "they are a direct and immediate threat to the wellbeing of others" but at the same time, killing them would have nothing to do with self-defense. This is precisely the improvement I made to your analogy.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:12 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Obviously you don't think it's okay to have your robot invade someone else's house and shoot them. And you never did an analogy about robots with guns or dinosaurs with guns.

I never said you made the point "we should allow people to have robots invade other people's homes and shoot them". So...


So... you made an argument against a point I never made (or one that wouldn't be the logical consequence of points that I did make)? There's a name for that...

Роберт wrote:Now, that analogy was bad because the example given was showing a killing done in self defense... If you'll note here:
yoni45 wrote:Such as: "The fact that self-defense is okay doesn't change this" -- my analogy and my point never made any claims as to whether self-defense being okay changes anything.


Yes, you'll note there your continued failure to understand my example or my point. There's nothing bad about my example, because the point of my example was simply to show that legitimate killing does not necessarily have to be the result of a judicial process or a crime. Which, is exactly what it did by showing at least one such instance.

The fact that you said "The fact that self-defense is okay doesn't change this [expanding the concept of war to mean that any male over 18 is assumed to be a soldier, and then killing them claiming it's war, is bad]" is still a rather clear example of you arguing against a point I never made.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:33 pm UTC

MarkSmash:
Further questions:

1. How long will it be before there is a UAV assassination on U.S. soil? Is a Timothy McVeigh tantamount to an Osama Bin Laden?

2. What would happen if UAV assassin technology were to be placed in the hands of another group, say Israel or a private multinational corporation? What safeguards are in place to ensure that this technology doesn't proliferate?

3. Are there individuals that will remain off the kill list? Heads of state, for example?

1. Depends on state vs nonstate. State: Almost never except war vs US by other countries like China or Russia. Nonstate, same as nuclear proliferation, but much easier. You just need to find a black market that sells cheap and well distributed drones + missiles that fit on them. However, there's the question of the defense network the US has, so it might depend on the radar signature of the drones.

2. The Russians, and Chinese the are the biggest concerns here, followed by Israel. All of them have security concerns that will justify, to them, any amount of strikes, drones just make it easier. Even if we didn't export the technology, they can just develop their own or copy our designs. We've lost several drones, Iran has one of ours.

3. Drones aren't special, they're just another weapon as Tymyndor has stated before. The fact that the US won't target heads of state is just a nicety of politics from the last century.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

sardia wrote:1. Depends on state vs nonstate. State: Almost never except war vs US by other countries like China or Russia. Nonstate, same as nuclear proliferation, but much easier. You just need to find a black market that sells cheap and well distributed drones + missiles that fit on them. However, there's the question of the defense network the US has, so it might depend on the radar signature of the drones.

2. The Russians, and Chinese the are the biggest concerns here, followed by Israel. All of them have security concerns that will justify, to them, any amount of strikes, drones just make it easier. Even if we didn't export the technology, they can just develop their own or copy our designs. We've lost several drones, Iran has one of ours.

3. Drones aren't special, they're just another weapon as Tymyndor has stated before. The fact that the US won't target heads of state is just a nicety of politics from the last century.


Pretty certain Israel already uses drones and is a pretty advanced player in their development.

(for the record, didn't the Iraq war start with an attempted hit on Saddam? ^_^)
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:39 pm UTC

Yea, I was wondering about that. IIRC, Israel started the surveilance drone thing because I remember the use of Israeli drones in Iraq war I. However, Israel doesn't have armed drones, AFAIK.

As for Hussein, I dunno if that's true or the implications of that. If it were, there were probably some political acrobatics done to make it ok.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:01 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:Yes, you'll note there your continued failure to understand my example or my point. There's nothing bad about my example, because the point of my example was simply to show that legitimate killing does not necessarily have to be the result of a judicial process or a crime. Which, is exactly what it did by showing at least one such instance.

No. If you were trying to do that, you used the worst example possible. The killing did involve a crime and did, by your implication that the robber was a "threat" being "neutralized" imply that the officer doing the killing was doing so in the defense of others and himself. So... try again? Actually, please don't. We've all read the Israel/Palestine thread already.
Heisenberg wrote:Speaking of which, why did you quote "crimes"? Do you really not think that terrorism is a crime?
Here's why I ask, because it's pretty damn obvious that terrorism is a crime. So I suspect you're trying to pretend that terrorists like Timothy McVeigh are part of some army and should be denied due process and have bombs dropped on them. Which is crap. So please either explain your sarcastic quotation marks or quit using them.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:03 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Роберт wrote:Obviously you don't think it's okay to have your robot invade someone else's house and shoot them. And you never did an analogy about robots with guns or dinosaurs with guns.

I never said you made the point "we should allow people to have robots invade other people's homes and shoot them". So...


So... you made an argument against a point I never made (or one that wouldn't be the logical consequence of points that I did make)?

No. Try reading comprehension sometime, you might like it.
yoni45 wrote:
...the point of my example was simply to show that legitimate killing does not necessarily have to be the result of a judicial process or a crime. Which, is exactly what it did by showing at least one such instance.

...exactly. Your example shows that killing in self defense is okay. Nobody cares because everyone agrees. Remember my example of talking about the government regulating sex? I see your point. Your point is dumb. I've seen it from the beginning when you gave your terrible analogy. I updated the analogy to take the self-defense portion out of it. Without the update, your argument was as good as the "people can't just marry their dogs, can they? We shouldn't allow gay marriage, either" argument.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:27 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:No. Try reading comprehension sometime, you might like it.


So, after admitting to argue a strawman, all you can do is follow it up with "nuh-uh". Right.

Роберт wrote:...exactly. Your example shows that killing in self defense is okay.


Seriously? That's all you took away from "...legitimate killing does not necessarily have to be the result of a judicial process or a crime..."? And you're telling other people about reading comprehension?

You're probably better off with "nuh-uh".

Роберт wrote:Without the update, your argument was as good as the "people can't just marry their dogs, can they? We shouldn't allow gay marriage, either" argument.


This, out of everything, shows just how deep your failure of my point goes: I never made any claim about what should or shouldn't be the case.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:40 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Роберт wrote:No. Try reading comprehension sometime, you might like it.


So, after admitting to argue a strawman, all you can do is follow it up with "nuh-uh". Right.

No. Try reading comprehension sometime, you might like it.
yoni45 wrote:
Роберт wrote:...exactly. Your example shows that killing in self defense is okay.


Seriously? That's all you took away from "...legitimate killing does not necessarily have to be the result of a judicial process or a crime..."? And you're telling other people about reading comprehension?

Nobody disagrees with "...legitimate killing does not necessarily have to be the result of a judicial process or a crime...". It's just irrelevant. As I keep repeating but you somehow keep missing.

yoni45 wrote:
Роберт wrote:Without the update, your argument was as good as the "people can't just marry their dogs, can they? We shouldn't allow gay marriage, either" argument.


This, out of everything, shows just how deep your failure of my point goes: I never made any claim about what should or shouldn't be the case.

Fine, your post was even more pointless than I realized. My mistake. It's like entering a conversation where people are talking about whether or not gay sex should be illegal and saying
Spoiler:
but we do make sex illegal if it's rape
without even trying to contribute to the actual conversation. Congratulations, you fooled me because I assumed you meant to contribute to the discussion. I'll try not to make that assumption again.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Qaanol » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:47 pm UTC

Okay, I’d like to request that everyone step back and take a breather here. We can return to the discussion of proper use and regulation of drone strikes tomorrow. Please.
wee free kings

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby yoni45 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:59 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:My mistake... Congratulations, you fooled me because I assumed you meant to contribute to the discussion.


If it took this long to have you comprehend what my post actually stated (still not sure you still fully get it), I can only imagine how many pages of posts it'll take to explain to you why said post might have been relevant.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:08 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Роберт wrote:My mistake... Congratulations, you fooled me because I assumed you meant to contribute to the discussion.


If it took this long to have you comprehend what my post actually stated (still not sure you still fully get it), I can only imagine how many pages of posts it'll take to explain to you why said post might have been relevant.

Try.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6802
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:11 pm UTC

If you two don't knock it off, I'm gonna report you both.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Malice » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:21 am UTC

I think the point of confusion is this:

Роберт wrote:Nobody disagrees with "...legitimate killing does not necessarily have to be the result of a judicial process or a crime...". It's just irrelevant.


As somebody who has read the rest of the thread, I don't think that's irrelevant at all. The argument was made (explicitly and implicitly) both before and after Yoni's initial analogy that there are only two acceptable avenues for a state action resulting in death: an opposing soldier is killed in the course of warfare and a criminal is tried, convicted, and sentenced to capital punishment. Yoni's point was simply that there are other options, including the idea that the state is allowed to use violence in order to protect itself or others from an imminent threat.

The counter-argument to that is that terrorism does not qualify under that specific doctrine because terrorists on foreign soil do not present an imminent threat to the United States or its citizens--however, Yoni's argument does not point to that doctrine being the appropriate one to apply to terrorists. It only points to the possibility of additional doctrines in additional situations, and (if I'm not mistaken) to the possibility that, like a bank robber attacking a police officer, a terrorist on foreign soil constitutes a unique circumstance deserving its own doctrine or avenue through which state-sponsored murder is acceptable.

Now, we can certainly discuss whether there is or should be such a doctrine--but then we'd be having a real conversation, wouldn't we? And we can't have that, apparently.
Image

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10273
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby addams » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:35 am UTC

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
That is one of my favorite doctrines.
I, just, read some milatry pdf's.
I don't know how to link them.
It is there on the google for all to see.

Dry reading.

It is possible to have a doctrine of non agression. (?)
Unarmed Drones. Peeking at you. Not coming to kill.

War is not good for flowers.
A change in doctrine always means retraining.
The pdf from Purdue said so.

I know from experence retraining is a must. Change in doctrine or not.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

It's still irrelevant. Alluding to a police officer killing a bank robber in self-defense may have implications for a scenario in which an armed Islamist is forcing his way into a mall or an airplane, but really has nothing to do with bombing brown people attending funerals, which is what we were talking about before this topic got derailed.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby Роберт » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

Malice wrote:I think the point of confusion is this:

Роберт wrote:Nobody disagrees with "...legitimate killing does not necessarily have to be the result of a judicial process or a crime...". It's just irrelevant.


As somebody who has read the rest of the thread, I don't think that's irrelevant at all. The argument was made (explicitly and implicitly) both before and after Yoni's initial analogy that there are only two acceptable avenues for a state action resulting in death: an opposing soldier is killed in the course of warfare and a criminal is tried, convicted, and sentenced to capital punishment. Yoni's point was simply that there are other options, including the idea that the state is allowed to use violence in order to protect itself or others from an imminent threat.
But the problem was that his example was self-defense from a current, physical, attack. Nobody cares because we all agree self-defense from a current, physical attack can be okay, just like we all agree (except for pacifists) that killing people in battle is okay. It's completely tangential to the issues we're concerned about - bombing funerals etc.

EDIT: whoops, this was already said.
Heisenberg wrote:It's still irrelevant. Alluding to a police officer killing a bank robber in self-defense may have implications for a scenario in which an armed Islamist is forcing his way into a mall or an airplane, but really has nothing to do with bombing brown people attending funerals, which is what we were talking about before this topic got derailed.

This was all I was trying to say when I corrected Yoni's analogy. Can we move on to talking about the interesting things?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

MarkSmash
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:16 am UTC

Re: The Global Growth of Drone Warfare

Postby MarkSmash » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:52 pm UTC

sardia wrote:MarkSmash:
2. The Russians, and Chinese the are the biggest concerns here, followed by Israel. All of them have security concerns that will justify, to them, any amount of strikes, drones just make it easier. Even if we didn't export the technology, they can just develop their own or copy our designs. We've lost several drones, Iran has one of ours.


That really reinforces the point that UAV attacks, for the most part, are the ideal tool to deal with non-state enemies. Russia and Israel have groups that don't have a recognized homeland that use unconventional tactics to launch attacks against their populations.

How about this idea: let's say that Hosni Mubarak had acccess to UAV surveillance and attack technology and had implemented it over the major cities like Cairo. Through a combination of surveillance, on the ground intelligence and drone attacks, could the Arab Spring have been prevented? Is UAV technology a game changer when it comes to popular uprisings?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests