Rand Paul does something I (mostly) approve of

[Elok]

It's the "cops never trying to take prisoners or get a warrant while taking orders from a presidential administration on the other side of the damned world, often selecting targets based on nebulous criteria, with an unusual amount of collateral damage, and not having their actions reported to the public" thing.

[Alexander's Horse]

Why is it so bad when it's drones but not so bad when it's just ordinary cops shooting people or something? Is it the whole ~robot assassins~ thing?

make human agency remote, less messy

[Aeson]

Why is it so bad when it's drones but not so bad when it's just ordinary cops shooting people or something? Is it the whole ~robot assassins~ thing?

How many cops do you know who shoot hellfire missles at their suspects without warning?

You're ****ing stupid.

[Wiglaf]

He never said they'd shoot hellfire missiles. People flip about drones simply because "Drones" sounds very imposing and Orwellian.

[Aeson]

He never said they'd shoot hellfire missiles.

That's generally what they're armed with for attacking ground based targets. Laser guided 500lbs bombs aren't any better of course.

People flip about drones simply because "Drones" sounds very imposing and Orwellian.

I don't find "drone" imposing. Perhaps you and reg should stop wetting your pants over the sound of the word for a few minutes and read the actual reasons offered in this (and the last) thread for plenty of perfectly reasonable explanations as to why assassinating people with drones is different than cops doing their job.

[MrFun]

I would also oppose using ground troops to blast the hell out of crowds of people who may or may not be terrorists on the grounds that they're males of a certain age, then telling Congress about it maybe a month later. Especially if the soldiers in question were taking orders from the CIA and state department with minimal input from actual military leaders. And the targets were, much of the time, not actually doing anything threatening at the moment, or even armed, making the difference between such attacks and plain assassination largely semantic. And over 200 kids died in the process.

Innocent American bystanders who die should be considered as collateral damage, just as Iraqi civilians who were bystanders have been killed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, that has happened more than once, if you recall, in Vietnam and Afghanistan. When people think they can get away with murder, they try it. But those were Army. The CIA et al historically preferred to waste people for practical reasons--like noncompliance with U.S. foreign policy goals.

The decision making process with drones is a bit different. Hellfire missiles are a tad more expensive than 5.56mm ammo, and there's always a running question when you acquire a target, is this a one-off opportunity to be taken, or is there a situation where the ******* in question thinks he's safe and you can gain more intel value by not firing yet. If anything, drone strikes have been done lightly and with a lot of discretion, as every time we plink one, the rest of the vermin go into hiding for a while. Same as hawks snatching gophers.

We're at "war" with a bunch of washed-up losers who, after years of planning, caught us napping more than a decade ago. They have not posed a credible threat since and in fact barely exist as a single entity anymore. We're fighting a brand more than an actual organization. And, as our means of doing so does not differ in its results from sending in Hollywood-style superspies with garrotes to slit their throats while they're on the crapper (except in efficiency), I'm not going to dignify it by pretending it resembles actual warfare. They are, in effect, assassins.

How much warfighting experience do you have? B52s. TLAMs and 155 arty and APMs (pre-ban) have the same reach out and let someone know you care properties. So do snipers. War isn't sport and it isn't a game. It's murder, ideally raised to the state of the art. You kill people and break things in whatever manner is the most efficient and lowest risk consistent with the needs of the mission. Drones are simply another element to the battlespace. The norm for insurgencies has been to concentrate to carry out an operation, then disperse until the next time. Dispersed *******s are real hard to track down amidst civilian populations - you go in at fireteam or squad level, they concentrate and overwhelm you. You go in at company or battalion level, they disperse and duck. They use density and force-space ratios to their favor to move, strike, reorganize and resupply on their terms. The *******s know there are only so many defendable firebases, COPs, etc. that we can establish in a given area, so if they disperse below a certain density, we don't have the manpower to follow them to ground. We know and they know that a majority of the battlespace is and always will be Indian country from the ground. Drones change that situation entirely - now the entirety of the battlespace is in play any time, and Mr Haji *******, esq. now knows he can never be sure if he really is in a sanctuary area, or if he's two seconds from meeting Allah and reading the fine print on that 72 virgin contract.

The main reason we're now at war with a bunch of uncoordinated, ineffective goat****ers is because of intel gathering and strike missions with drones. Take drones out of the battlespace, and now you have AQ affiliates operating within sanctuary areas instead of trying to figure out the new org chart every other day while figuring where the hell they can hide.

The administration wants us to take their word for it that all the people it assassinates are, in fact, terrorists. We have no official or reliable means of evaluating that claim, since it's all secret. IIUC, they eventually report it to certain Congressional committees, and we figure out a bit of it later via nosy reporters. I don't trust the former, and we shouldn't have to depend on the latter. To be fair, I think the substantial majority of their targets are actually up to something ugly. But that doesn't make it okay, and I don't trust every future administration to be so just with the power of this precedent, especially as drones become cheaper, more powerful, and less newsworthy as the strikes go on and on and on and on...

I could say a good deal more on this subject, but time doesn't permit. Later, maybe.

As does every administration since Geo. Washington. There has never been a time in history when tactical and operational warfighting decisions were made with public input. Drones are far more in view and in discussion than the DA missions we're undertaking in, oh, about 20 countries. There is far more going on in far less public view than drones, and that's the way it's going to be. As far as making it ok, it doesn't matter - it's the way it is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's the "cops never trying to take prisoners or get a warrant while taking orders from a presidential administration on the other side of the damned world, often selecting targets based on nebulous criteria, with an unusual amount of collateral damage, and not having their actions reported to the public" thing.

We don't take prisoners in DA missions either. Targets are selected on the same criteria, the only difference is typical collateral damages because we have the time and logistical aspect to put anywhere from 20-50 highly trained troops at potentially extreme risk.

[regexcellent]

Air Force pilot perspective on drones

Spoiler:

yes, the people singing this are actually current active duty F-16 pilots

[MichaeltheGreat]

[Elok]

Yeaaahhhh, we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well the President claiming the right to engage in extra-judicial executions on US soil seems like as good an excuse as any.

I thought there was a constitution that prevented that sort of thing.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Innocent American bystanders who die should be considered as collateral damage, just as Iraqi civilians who were bystanders have been killed.

No. In one case the execution of a US citizen has rights of due process afforded by the constitution, thus any 'collateral' damage accrues due to the extrajudicial and extraconstitutional use of force. In the case of Iraqi civilians they are not afforded those same rights (their protections come under the conduct of war via geneva conventions) further the use of the drones on Foreign enemies is via the Authorization Use of Military Force. The reclassification of a citizen to an enemy combatant such that use of drones is applied requires some form of due process.

[MrFun]

No. In one case the execution of a US citizen has rights of due process afforded by the constitution, thus any 'collateral' damage accrues due to the extrajudicial and extraconstitutional use of force. In the case of Iraqi civilians they are not afforded those same rights (their protections come under the conduct of war via geneva conventions) further the use of the drones on Foreign enemies is via the Authorization Use of Military Force. The reclassification of a citizen to an enemy combatant such that use of drones is applied requires some form of due process.

Too bad the Geneva Conventions don't prohibit or seriously regulate the use of drones.

Or maybe it's just another way of saying, "Brown-skinned people in far away lands don't count as human."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hyperventilating hyperbole aside, No its a way of saying that citizenry counts for something here in the US. Something supposedly assured via the constitution.