7-Day Drone Poll

[Flying Squirrel]

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 01:52 AM - Edit history (3)

I would really like to see where DU stands on this, so I'll keep it kicked for 7 days (I'm sure the issue won't be going away anytime soon).

Do you support targeted assassination or military strikes with drones:

54 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Never (dismantle them all)
	15 (28%)
	ONLY against a country that Congress has officially declared war on
	15 (28%)
	Against those we know to be terrorists, with the exclusion of Americans, anywhere
	0 (0%)
	Against those we know to be terrorists, including Americans, anywhere
	3 (6%)
	Same as No. 3 but not within the U.S.
	0 (0%)
	Same as No. 4 but not within the U.S.
	16 (30%)
	No. 3 as well as local law enforcement when absolutely necessary
	0 (0%)
	No. 4 as well as local law enforcement when absolutely necessary
	0 (0%)
	Whenever (and wherever) necessary to protect the U.S. and law abiding citizens/law enforcement
	3 (6%)
	Uncertain, or Other (I will state my view in response to this OP)
	2 (4%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[2on2u]

1. I support the rights of other nations to send drones everywhere and anywhere they please, up

to and including you guessed it, OOBY.



Who will live and who will die, screaming fire from the sky,

Stealthy airframes, missiles tucked under, rain down fire, constitutional blunder,

Debate it now, debate it then, debate until who knows when,

Your rights selective, the present score, safer perhaps unsettled more.

[JaneyVee]

2. War is stupid.

[Flying Squirrel]

3. kick

[Flying Squirrel]

5. .

[Flying Squirrel]

7. .

[Flying Squirrel]

8. .

[Flying Squirrel]

10. .

[Flying Squirrel]

11. .

[Flying Squirrel]

12. .

[Flying Squirrel]

13. .

[Flying Squirrel]

14. .

[Flying Squirrel]

25. .

[Flying Squirrel]

28. .

[Flying Squirrel]

35. .

[Flying Squirrel]

40. .

[Flying Squirrel]

41. .

[Flying Squirrel]

42. .

[Flying Squirrel]

43. .

[Flying Squirrel]

44. .

[Flying Squirrel]

45. .

[Flying Squirrel]

49. .

[Flying Squirrel]

59. .

[Flying Squirrel]

62. .

[Flying Squirrel]

64. .

[BainsBane]

4. I find this a difficult question to answer

I don't like the idea of drones and secret attacks against Americans. But then I think why should an American's life be more valuable than anyone else's? It isn't. Drones are bad, but then war is bad. Some have argued that drones actually bring fewer casualties than other forms of attack. So are all efforts to kill terrorists illegitimate? I am not sure. The whole thing is highly problematic.

[otherone]

6. yup

[grahamhgreen]

36. It's no due process or declaration of war that makes it unethical.

[BainsBane]

39. due process I agree with

A declaration of war speaks to the process of our political system. I doesn't say anything about whether the person targeted is actually an imminent threat to the US.

[Catherina]

9. Never ever unless we want to extend that privilege to others

and whether we extend it or not, the blowback will come and I refuse to sympathize with any hand-wringing over it, or any ridiculous wailing of "why do they hate us?"

[avebury]

51. Agreed! nt

[whatchamacallit]

15. Like all the rest of this crap your poll misses the salient issue

"We know to be terrorists" - it's the 'knowing' that's at issue. So far, every defense of the policy I've seen assumes guilt. If you're going to target one of your own citizens, a secret 'cuz I say so' doesn't cut it.

[Flying Squirrel]

17. Oh, I completely agree with you.

I just didn't think anyone on DU would be obvious enough to select a poll response actually mirroring what we're really doing.

"Wherever and whenever deemed necessary by the President of the United States, against anyone (American Citizen or not) with any kind of ties to suspected terrorists (which may be defined, if we so choose, as any kind of organized protest group)." Yeah, someone's gonna choose that one.

By wording things the way I did, I'm hoping to get a sense of how hawkish this website has become.

Amazingly enough, as of this writing, 7% have chosen the closest response to that: Wherever, and whenever necessary to protect the U.S. and law-abiding citizens. I guess they're keying in on the "necessary" and thinking we'd use the drones only when absolutely necessary (perhaps as a last resort) and with maximum restraint. They're fooling themselves, and I expect most people would realize it and not select that option.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Ah...

Carry on

[davidpdx]

29. The problem with internet polls as you probably know they are not particularly accurate

The sample is a based on random convenience and some people may be more prone to answer based on the fact that the result are not confidential. It will give you an approximation, but I doubt it will be representative of DU.

That being said, the answers are worded pretty well.

[BainsBane]

22. +1

[Demo_Chris]

16. kick

[baldguy]

18. There are people in this world who want to kill Americans

And who are outside of the jurisdiction of any govt. There always have been.

America used to deal with these people by invading the countries these people are using as a safe haven - starting in 1801 with the Barbary Wars. When we had the ability, we dropped bombs on those countries - too many to name. Then we had cruise missiles - in Afghanistan, and Sudan, and Somalia & many others.

Drone strikes are just the latest step in the use of increasing technology to carry out a centuries-long established foreign policy position of the United States.

[bluestate10]

21. Drone strikes eliminates terrorists. Targeting is good and will become better with coming

Drones, which will have the capacity to kill a target in a room full of people without harming anyone else in that room.

[Humanist_Activist]

30. Wow, I didn't know fantasy was your forte!

You can't be serious with that claim, can you, they still use explosions, even a sniper with a single bullet runs the risk of hitting other people in a room they shoot into, even if they hit their intended target.

[joshcryer]

56. That's actually their long term roadmap.

They plan to be able to kill with high discrimination using drones the size of a wallet or a pack of cards, that get deployed in an area, find their target, and execute it. Really. I am not making this up.

[xoom]

20. I voted uncertain.

I'm fine with drone strikes over seas where ground troops are not necessary. I do not agree with drone strikes on american soil. There are plenty of police ot federal agents to get someone here at home.

[bluestate10]

23. Drone strikes on US soil is smokescreen bullshit that the anti-Drone crowd has conjured up.

It is complete fantasy bullshit. Surveillance Drones may and should be used, but there is no reason to arm them. State and federal agents are sufficient to track down and capture a person that has good rogue within US borders.

[xoom]

33. Exactly.

[joshcryer]

57. BS, easy scenario where they could be used on US soil:

Governor secedes from the union via referendum, army base is confiscated. Said governors mansion would be hit in an instant. That's treason shit there.

I agree that simply one person going rouge or a small group could be captured and it would be bad politics to do a strike on them, but there are still scenarios where I could see a drone strike on US soil as politically viable.

[TheKentuckian]

24. Never. If it is worth a war then by definition it is worth skin

Wars are too easy to get into and hard as hell to get out of with real costs in blood and treasure. Making war cheaper, without danger, without damaged warriors, without broken bodies and minds, without busted up families, without sacrifice, without worry is beyond dangerous.

Combine this shit with easy logistics, secrecy on an unprecedented level, and unitary decision making with ever fewer required to accept and obey orders and you have made abuse virtually without risk and as remotes advance and need less and less human control the risk of abuse grows into near certainty. It just would be too damn easy, with little downside or potential to be undone.

Why allow what cannot be undone? This shit is no joke, think beyond the moment, do not forget human history.

[2naSalit]

26. +100! (n/t)

[hay rick]

27. If it's ok for us, it's ok for somebody else.

If we have the right to kill suspected terrorists in other countries, other countries surely have the same right to protect themselves by killing people on our soil.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. That's true, Cuba is the first country that comes to mind, they have the strongest claim...

that the U.S. government harbors terrorists against them, that U.S. authorities refuse to extradite, so they would be justified to send drones into the United States.

[Humanist_Activist]

32. Even though I voted in this poll, I find it flawed, it assumes Godlike knowledge of who is...

or isn't guilty of terrorism or other crimes by the government, it also says nothing about oversight.

[Flying Squirrel]

34. Both very good points

I said "know" rather than "believe" because I didn't think many people would agree with strikes based on a belief. Oversight isn't included because it's a separate issue from whether we should be even doing it at all. I think most would agree some kind of oversight is needed after the fact - which will probably happen now that this has become public knowledge. The more hawkish would claim that oversight before the strike would hamper the Executive branch too much (man, that word "Executive" starts to really live up to its name, doesn't it?) But I already have 10 poll answers for the single issue so that's where this poll stands.. thanks for voting in it.

[grahamhgreen]

37. Define " targeted assassination". Of Americans?

[Flying Squirrel]

38. That would depend on which poll option you choose

Whether it would include assassination of Americans or not.

[TBF]

46. The problem w/#2 is that Congress declares war on way too many folks -

I'm going to stick w/the other pacifists and say dismantle them.

[Flying Squirrel]

47. Congress hasn't officially declared war on anyone since WW2

Korea was a "police action" and god only knows what Vietnam was.

[TBF]

60. Good point -

I think I still stand w/no drones ... at least until I learn more about what they might be able to do that's positive (as in not just hunt down people - maybe there is some private industry use that actually makes sense?).

[hedgehog]

48. I understand there use against terrorists, but I'd like to see some sort

of court designating who falls into that category.

[csziggy]

50. K&R

[Omaha Steve]

52. Kick

[Katashi_itto]

53. K&R

[Martin Eden]

54. Other

I think we should hve this capability, but the laws need to be rewritten to prevent possible abuse. There should be a system of judicial oversight, and the threshold for compelling evidence and tangible threat must be high. Extrajudicial executions should be very rare, reserved for the most extreme cases.

[joshcryer]

55. I passed for one simple reason.

Being anti-authoritarian, it is clear that states will use whatever means that they will have at their disposal against belligerents. With that knowledge the only consistent position you can take is "states don't like belligerents."

If you say, "I do not believe the state I live within should protect itself from belligerents," then you are effectively saying "I do not believe the state I live within should be a state." Since, clearly, if states do not protect themselves from belligerents they will fall into disarray and no longer be states. Such a position is untenable, and indeed, ridiculous.

No state on the planet will give up its sovereign right to protect itself from belligerents.

The first proposition supposes states shouldn't use certain technologies to protect themselves. This is all well and good, but it is not a scenario that exists in reality. Even the most anti-American of states are building nukes, and the very same people who might say that we shouldn't use drones would come off as pro-proliferation when it comes anti-American states having nuclear warheads! A truly diabolical proposition!

The second proposition supposes that the drone war is a war on a declared state. It is not. It is a war against those not recognized by a state. For good reason. If a state recognized the belligerents, then they would defacto be responsible for the actions of the belligerents, and themselves would be a target, and not drone strikes, but actions far more sinister such as a ground invasion.

The third through eighth propositions are basically not that different except they make silly exceptions for whether one is American or not or whether one resides in America or not. All of those scenarios ignore that no state on the planet will give up its sovereign right to protect itself from belligerents. So they are untenable, they simply aren't reality. Adding law enforcement into the mix ups the ante but it's also not very different.

So when I'm asked, "Do you support targeted assassination or military strikes with drones?" my answer is clearly no. But I'm not naive to believe that there exist any other possibility when states are concerned and therefore cannot vote "other" because there simply exist no other possibility. They will be increasingly used, and they will be used within the United States. It's inevitable.

[Earth_First]

58. Fuck war. n/t

[Flying Squirrel]

61. I tend to agree.

The only reason I chose option two was that Congress rarely has the balls to exercise their Constitutional duty to declare war anymore, not having done so since WWII and having passed the "War Powers Act" after 9-11, so if they were to actually declare war again, there would probably be a good reason for it.

[markpkessinger]

63. K&R