Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

I really doubt they'll ever use drones on US soil though, unless they become a whole lot more focusable. I mean the targets can be explained away, but when they blow up the local barbershop, bystanders, or a school by mistake? There are more efficient ways to assassinate unwanteds.

Is the bill allowing them to kill citizens by any means or just drop bombs on them?

[Truean]

I really doubt they'll ever use drones on US soil though, unless they become a whole lot more focusable. I mean the targets can be explained away, but when they blow up the local barbershop, bystanders, or a school by mistake? There are more efficient ways to assassinate unwanteds.

Is the bill allowing them to kill citizens by any means or just drop bombs on them?

The bill doesn't specify a method of execution. Also see below, they are using drones domestically.

I'm trying to see how you're not using a slippery slope fallacy, so pointing to non-drone related things isn't helping.

Closest to relevant that I found was this, linked from the first humor article you linked:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinunderhill/2012/03/05/attorney-general-explains-why-its-okay-to-kill-u-s-citizens-without-a-trial/

It specifies "in a foreign country." So I don't see any evidence of drones killing US citizens on US soil anytime soon. Outside, maybe. Under weak suspicions, sure. But not with the drones we're talking about.

Both articles are written by Kevin Underhill. Basically, same thing. We're essentially posting to the same thing written by the same lawyer who writes for both this site and Forbes. Everything I'm posting is on the policy behind drone use, which is just a tool to carry out said polices. Don't focus on the tool (the drone), focus on the polices they are being used to carry out.

They are going to use those drones domestically http://rt.com/usa/news/us-drones-border-patrol-489/.
And people are worried about it: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10344710-pilots-worry-about-safety-of-allowing-domestic-drones-in-us-skies
Police are using them: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2011-01-13-drones_N.htm

As for the slippery slope thing, I've never bought into that being a "logical fallacy," per se on its own. No, they don't currently load domestic drones. No, there are no immediate plans to arm them, keyword, "immediate." There's also nothing stopping them from arming them and being worried about that risk isn't nuts, nor is it unreasonable. These damn things are military grade hardware, and there is absolutely nothing preventing them from being armed in one fashion or another. And as the government slowly strips away our civil liberties, there will be less and less of a reason not to arm them. All it takes is one little fear driven policy change and they can be armed.

Is it certain, no, not currently. Is there anything preventing it, no. Do they want to do this, probably yes. They'll use it as surveillance at first, and then see how that goes. After that it'll become a "why not arm them" thing.

Do you have any reason to think they WON'T eventually arm drones in the US?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Also, the fact that the government currently bans U.S. civilians from using drone technology or jamming technology under harsh penalty is not a good sign.

[Reelya]

I'm trying to see how you're not using a slippery slope fallacy, so pointing to non-drone related things isn't helping.

In this case it's not a "slippery slope" because we're talking about legal interpretations of the current legislation.

Exactly what is a "terrorist". The  legal meaning for that is pretty broad.

Truean's pointing out that the legislation allows them to target any behavior, links, traits they like and have a non-judicial death sentence, anywhere anytime, more or less.

The best i can find of is this :-

(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

But, you don't have to have actually done this to be a terrorist. Just talking about it is enough.

[Truean]

^
Yup

Also if you have any student loans, yeah....

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/reid_federal_student_loans/?rc=fb_share1

The republicans are going to double the interest rate you're paying effectively....

Subsidized Stafford loans will go from 3.4% interest to 6.8% interest this summer unless someone does something like renewing the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Fun....

"As Sarah Jaffe observed in her excellent piece in AlterNet:

    "It's worth noting, as well, that many of the big banks that make a killing on private student loans and still have billions of government-subsidized student debt on their books, are able to borrow money from the government through the Federal Reserve's discount window at nearly no interest at all. Why, then, are young people, who aren't guilty of trashing the economy but remain the victims of a rate of unemployment nearly twice that of the rest of the population, expected to pay more?""

Good question. Why are we rewarding these banks in so many ways after they've screwed us.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Why are we rewarding these banks in so many ways after they've screwed us.

Stockholm syndrome.

[Truean]

Why are we rewarding these banks in so many ways after they've screwed us.

Stockholm syndrome.

Sure, I'd agree with that. Basically we're screwed and see no other way out besides to hope and pray these morons help us.

That's like relying upon firemen who are also the arsonist.

[Reelya]

Or voting an anti-terrorist government back in because they tell you "well, the terrorists are really mad at us now, if you don't vote for us again the terrorists will definitely get you."

[Loud Whispers]

Or voting an anti-terrorist government back in because they tell you "well, the fat cats are really mad at us now, if you don't vote for us again the FBI will definitely get you."

Ftfy.

[scriver]

I really doubt they'll ever use drones on US soil though, unless they become a whole lot more focusable. I mean the targets can be explained away, but when they blow up the local barbershop, bystanders, or a school by mistake? There are more efficient ways to assassinate unwanteds.

Is the bill allowing them to kill citizens by any means or just drop bombs on them?

The bill doesn't specify a method of execution. Also see below, they are using drones domestically.

Well, drones are surveillance equipment as well, right? Doing away with unwanteds is still a lot simpler, cleaner, less risky, more discrete and most of all cheaper to do otherwise. Why use a drone to bomb someone when you can just put a few bullets in them?

That's why I asked about if it just let them kill people or just bomb them. Because if they're allowed to kill people by any means and do decide to go full dystopia, they're not going to start dropping bombs (that aren't even reliable to hit what they're aiming at) at them. In fact, I doubt they'll ever start bombing people on US soil unless it becomes and actual warzone. That just isn't sensible.

[palsch]

One thing that's worth noting about the AG's speech, before commenting on the deeper problems.

While 'terrorist' is a broad and poorly defined term, the AG is using it as shorthand for those targeted by the AUMF. This gave the president power to wage war against a certain group. Specifically;

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

This is the definition that is in question in all these points of law. Holder's speech specified that the targeted individuals must be part of al Qaeda or an associated group to be sure of satisfying this definition.

The main point of that speech was to defend the legality of using against US citizens overseas what have been effectively accepted as legal actions when used against non-citizens.

Abstracting this further, I'm not sure I'm entirely opposed to the administration's logic here. Their argument boils down to these being military strikes against military targets. The decision to go ahead with one of these strikes does tend to be a military action, made with little time and based on changeable conditions and intelligence. If a US citizen had joined the ground forces of an enemy power I doubt you would have a due process case to make when he is killed in combat, even if his citizenship was known when the shots were authorised. The way the administration has laid out their case is dragging these extra-judicial killings towards that sort of case. Which is to say that their full set of conditions requires a situation that most people would probably agree is a military strike against a justified target where judicial review is impractical or even impossible.

I'd probably be more comfortable with the situation if there was guaranteed retroactive review, with the administration being required to put their case before a judge simultaneous to the strike. It might not prevent the first unjustified/illegal attack, but it would allow for consequences to such an action while also preventing or at least discouraging others. At the same time that might be enough to discourage the US from taking any such open actions. I don't doubt that this would force any such targeted killings underground rather than actually stopping them.

[DrPoo]

Why is everything going to hell?
I mean, jesus christ.. all theese shitty things ruining everything.. i want my free right to do whatever i want as long as it dosent hurt anybody..

[Truean]

Why is everything going to hell?
I mean, jesus christ.. all theese shitty things ruining everything.. i want my free right to do whatever i want as long as it dosent hurt anybody..

People got scared and were stupid/didn't know how to handle it. This is the plot of every sit com ever, except worse.

[Reelya]

I was wondering what the sitcom would be called, then i remembered "This Modern World" !

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Tom Tomorrow never fails to deliver

[Kilroy the Grand]

Also, the fact that the government currently bans U.S. civilians from using drone technology or jamming technology under harsh penalty is not a good sign.

Do you honestly not see why letting the average person run around with a jammer is a bad idea? Really?