So, what's the alternative (re: Drones)?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I get the problems many people here- and elsewhere- have expressed regarding drone strikes and I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't the least bit concerned about them but if we don't use drone strikes to get at these guys hanging out in remote, lawless regions, then what DO we do to get them before they plan, organize, and carry out attacks against us and/or our allies? What would everybody concerned about drone strikes be more comfortable with? What kind of oversight does everybody suggest? Get rid of AUMF? Then what?

What's Rand Paul's alternative proposal? Did he touch on that during this filibuster rant yesterday? If President Obama were to stop drone strikes today and at some point, hypothetically, somebody that we've had in our sights, does something, will Rand Paul then turn around and lambaste President Obama for "not doing anything?" Will he excoriate his Republicans whom attack him over his inaction? Remember how they all used to blame Clinton for not doing everything in (and sometimes not in) his power to get OBL prior to 9/11? Notice how they're jumping all over President Obama right now over 4 dead diplomats in Libya? Does Paul want us to send troops in everywhere to get these guys and if so, will he support these efforts or sit on the sidelines, like so many typically warmongering Republicans did during the limited Libya intervention, and carp about the President (mis-)using our military forces?

Raising questions and demanding oversight about all of this is what Congress and an informed citizenry is supposed to be doing (and, frankly, should have been doing more of during the previous 8 years of Bush/Cheney's "war on terror&quot but once you've identified the concern(s), then we need to decide on a better way to accomplish the same goals, which I presume that everybody shares (eliminating/incapacitating terrorists). These are all perfectly legitimate concerns. Hopefully, Congress is able to sort through them all in a responsible manner and come up with reasonable alternatives, which would be a far better use of time than a huge long-winded filibuster rant that Rand Paul pulled yesterday IMHO.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. What did we use before we had them.

Before drones, we could bomb with aircraft flown by qualified military pilots, send in teams of qualified individuals, or accept that some possible dangers to the U.S. could not be touched in some countries.

Is the ability and will to kill anyone someone perceives as a threat 24/7/365 on any point on the globe without endangering the life of the pilot or person pulling the trigger a good solution to having people who might threaten us?

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Before drones, we fired cruise missiles

President Clinton did this quite often, under the same basic philosophy as the drone warfare, as did George H.W. before him. And yes, there were complaints about innocent victims and imperialism and all that. Some of us remember the fracas over a supposed pharmaceutical factory in Sudan destroyed by a Clinton cruise missile strike - some progressive groups extrapolated out to how many must have died for lack of the inexpensive medicine produced by this factory, and land at a number higher than all Obama drone strikes combined.

This game has been going on in various guises for quite some time, as it stands. The three positions look like this:

1) Full military intervention, with land forces and World War II type ground invasion (W. Bush, Cheney, neocons)
2) Limited military intervention, with cruise missiles or drones, or some other US casualty-reducing technique (Clinton, Obama)
3) No military intervention; critique of imperialism; police actions for dealing with "criminal" terrorism (Code Pink; DU leftists; etc.)

[GeorgeGist]

9. Snort!

DUzy.

[Sheepshank]

26. and before cruise missiles, we used clubs.

I'm not sure any option will appease 100% of the people 100% of the time.

The only option is no more global aggression. What are the chances?

[JDPriestly]

13. Have you ever talked to anyone who was on the other end

of one of our WWII bombing raids?

Most Americans have no idea just how horrible it is for an innocent child to wake up one morning and find that half his apartment building and all the children who lived in that half are gone forever.

Drones make it that much easier and cheaper to kill innocent people indiscriminately. I know that our government claims that drones can be targeted better than bombs but I am not sure.

Certainly, drones do not kill as large a number of people as the bombs did, but drones kill just as surely.

When I first heard about the drones, I thought like you are thinking and then I learned more about them. They are really bad news. It will be almost impossible to keep them out of the hands of drug lords and the like.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. I'm a Vietnam veteran, and have been under fire.

It is a gawdaful thing to happen whether a drone, aircraft, artillery, cruise missile, mortar round, etc. etc. etc. War sucks for everyone, the soldier on the ground and the innocent in the cradle. That wasn't the point of my answer.

I am well aware that Drones are a way of reducing danger to pilots. When a man can sit comfortably in a trailer at Nellis Air Force Base and rain hellfire on someone in Yemen, the only significant danger is carpal tunnel syndrome. I am also aware that they are vastly cheaper than conventional aircraft, and the training program can be cone mostly with video games. Weapons used are smaller, more easily targeted, and cause less collateral damage (Military euphemism for innocents caught in the crossfire). Relatively speaking, they are an incredibly cheap way to fight a war. Because they don't put our sons and daughters in any significant danger, they are easy to sell to father's and mothers.

They have allowed us to expand conflict to anywhere on the cheap. Personally, I think that it a bad idea. When war becomes too easy and too cheap we use it for the slightest provocation, or none at all.

The original OP appears to look at the material advantages of drones over more conventional methods of war without considering all the consequences.

[Life Long Dem]

41. I'd hate to punch that clock everyday.

"Because they don't put our sons and daughters in any significant danger, they are easy to sell to father's and mothers."

Maybe no physical damage, but I'm sure moms will be asking about the psychological dangers. Just another normal day at the office creating a little collateral damage - I guess.

[MADem]

56. All of those options are very expensive. The pilot is expensive--training, salary, family

housing, medical and dental care, allowances, retraining--and if she or he dies, a pension for the widow(er).

A drone is a fixed cost entity, flown by a trained (often enlisted--cheaper salary) operator sitting in a safe place far from the battlefield.

And we're not the only nation that has them anymore.


The horse has left the barn on drones. We just have to figure out how they can be regulated in a reasonable fashion, we can certainly discuss our "policeman" role vis a vis global security issues... but they will never go away.

If we give up on drones, the drones we'll be seeing up above us will quite likely be Chinese:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_Soar_Eagle

[Agnosticsherbet]

58. Just because the horse left the barn it doesn't mean we must...

chase it.

[MADem]

59. We can chase it all we'd like--it's running free now. We won't unring that horsie bell, I'm afraid.

We aren't the only nation in the world with a drone program. More and more countries will move to this paradigm. This is how we'll ALL be "playing the game" from now on.

They are efficient, affordable, and do the two jobs of power projection and intelligence collection.

And for the conspiracy theorists, the drones are the new black helicopters, only quieter.




The one pictured above is used by the Canadians, the Dutch, the French, etc.


We're not the only drone game in town...haven't been for a while.


http://www.sagem-ds.com/spip.php?rubrique37&lang=en

[upaloopa]

2. End our involvement in the wars. We are not the worlds police force.

While we launch drones, train foreign troops, rebuild a war torn infrastructure and schools, we lack funding to retrain our unemployed, rebuild our infrastructure, adequately fund public schools while we launch domestic drones.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. That's fine (and I agree with you in principle)

but what about those people who do truly harbor ill-intentions towards us whom are already all stoked up and ready to kill us?

[Mnemosyne]

5. Change our policies so everyone doesn't hate us, maybe? nt

[jeff47]

30. Because they'll just say "oh, nevermind"?

[Mnemosyne]

34. It will take awhile, but better than continuing it in perpetuity.

[jeff47]

46. And when they launch another catastrophic attack while it 'takes a while'?

9/11 gave W the political capital to invade any country he damn well felt like.

So we pull back again, and then there's another 9/11-scale attack. And we just happen to have some new moron as President. So we invade another two or three countries to "smoke 'em out".

Thus setting back all the "take a while" from before the attack, creating far more animosity, and killing 1000x more people.

Drones suck. They suck less than our other options.

[Mnemosyne]

51. Well, let's just kill fucking anyone that isn't us and be done with it. Bunch of fucking cowards. nt

[jeff47]

60. That would be what we're trying to avoid by using drones. (nt)

[Comrade Grumpy]

67. Most of the people we're killing with drones are not Al-Qaeda...

...and have little interest in attacking the United States. They are Afghan and Pakistani Taliban types whose interests are local, not global. They will fight us forever in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but will not be chasing after us when we leave.

We have essentially destroyed Al Qaeda Central. We should declare victory and retreat home.

The war on "terror" is over. We won.

There are those "Al Qaeda franchises," but that's not bin Laden and crew, it's just radicals hopping on a brand. Those guys have mainly local interests, except, as is the case in Yemen, where we've been dropping drones on them for years and the occasionally try to repay the favor with a copy machine bomb or an underwear bomber. If we stopped fucking around in Yemen, they would most likely forget about us. In the meantime, it would be time for police actions, not perpetual wars on abstractions.

[upaloopa]

8. Use the UN forces without the majority coming from us.

Treat police actions as police actions not wars.
I am a Vietnam vet and I can see using drones instead of troops. In Vietnam we called in air strikes which saved American lives but killed innocent civilians.
Drones or manned air strikes have the same result which is indiscriminate killing. We should stop doing that.

[jeff47]

29. What police action?

The folks planning attacks aren't located in failed states or other locations featuring UN troops.

So....should the UN invade Yemen?

[upaloopa]

36. The UN should be the world police not us.

9-11 should have been handled as a police action. We should never have gone to Afghanistan or Iraq.

[jeff47]

47. How, exactly, should they have handled it?

The UN does not have any power to arrest. Thus, they could not have strolled into Afghanistan and picked up bin Laden.

Thus the "UN Option" is for the UN to lead a military invasion of Afghanistan.

Which is exactly what happened.

[upaloopa]

52. We handle 9-11 as police action not UN I was

Not clear my apologies

[jeff47]

61. And my point is there was no way to do so

There was no way to arrest bin Laden. That's kinda the key requirement for handling 9/11 as a "police action".

Afghanistan was not interested in turning him over. Neither was Pakistan. So how do we arrest and try the guy?

The only way to do so would be to invade, be it a large force taking over the country or a small "special forces" team. The latter has a long history of failure, despite the success of the eventual bin Laden raid.

[Comrade Grumpy]

71. How do we arrest bin Laden? Send in a SWAT team. That's what we did do.

We didn't invade Pakistan, although we violated its sovereignty.

We didn't drone strike him.

We sent in a death squad. It could just as easily have arrested him, but I guess we weren't really interested in that.

[jeff47]

72. Sending a "SWAT team" is an invasion.

We didn't invade Pakistan, although we violated its sovereignty.

People who are not counting angels dancing on heads of pins understand that any boots on the ground is an invasion.

If the Philippines had sent a "SWAT Team" to Hawaii to arrest Marcos, I don't think our response would have been "Oh, it's just some cops. We'll ignore that."

[99Forever]

24. Thank you, upaloopa, even tho...

... the entire concept is lost on authoritarian, warmongering, corporate ass-kissing sycophants. To some of us, being a decent neighbor and not sticking our fucking noses into every other nations politics, seems a much healthier alternative, although it does have the downside of not feeding the Corporate Fleshgrinding War Machine and the shitballs that run it.

[Nye Bevan]

6. I'm not sure what the best answer is.

But if the cops want to search my house, they have to go to a judge and convince him that there is a good reason to do so. It does not seem right that there is no similar kind of control if the President decides that a US citizen should be executed.

[piratefish08]

7. Death Lasers From Space?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. A good start would be to close down their money supply from the nations financing them.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Dubai, Iran, etc.

[JDPriestly]

11. The problem is that drone strikes do not provide a person

with an opportunity to answer for what he is doing in a court of law. Drones are instruments of sudden death.

Anyone can get a drone, many people can even construct their own drones, and they grant unbelievable power to kill on anyone who has one.

The use of armed drones is unacceptable unless strictly governed by rules that insure they are not used wrongly.

Right now, I don't think people have understood or recognized just how dangerous the concept of a drone is.

It makes the WWII bombing raids look harmless, and they brought horror beyond belief to those who were their victims or near their victims.

With drones, we are getting into a horror beyond anything that most of us have every imagined. And we have no rules for their use. If you think assault weapons are bad, you don't want drones.

I can't think of very many places in the US that are so remote that we would need to permit the use of drones anywhere other than for rescue or fire control or natural disasters. We just don't have that many really remote areas. Helicopters will do just fine, thank you.

[Johonny]

14. It isn't that law enforcement officers don't use deadly force now

I'm not sure the best way to take say two heavily armored citizens carrying a large amount of weapons if for law enforcement to wander in and get themselves killed. I see no reason to take modern technology off the table nor do I believe use of deadly force by law enforcement is unpopular with the American people.

The real question is who has oversight. When the Torrance police use deadly force on two women delivering newspapers how does the law enforcement apparatus answer for that... That is always the problem. The apparatus for the used of deadly force in places where it seems unnecessary or criminal does not appear to be appropriately over sighted. So while I think most people feel law enforcement should be allowed to use deadly force, most believe if it is used unlawfully already and that there will be no consequences when it is. The former is not likely to change, but Congress, the courts etc... should work on the later. Hey if it is the information age and they need to get a warrant 10 days after a wire tap... fine but what is the consequence for wire tapping an innocent person, who has over sight, who gets to know... That's the problem.

In Obama's case I don't have any fear though. Unlike Nut Paul I know if Obama ever killed even a criminal with a drone the house would try to impeach him. Of course Obama won't be president for ever (even if Nut Paul thinks he might) but from warrantless wire tapping to drone strikes the federal government has failed the American people in over sight and making a system that is hard to corrupt. Without that why the fuck should the American people trust those authorized to use deadly force or unwarranted surveillance etc... where is the apparatus of checks, balances and consequences for being wrong?

[jeff47]

31. So how, exactly, do you propose we arrest someone in Yemen?

How, exactly, will they be brought into court?

[Autumn]

12. Here's a damn good alternative. It seems to work when it is done.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324034804578346243937198214.html

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. I agree that that is the best alternative (when feasible)

Apparently, we didn't have to resort to a drone strike to get this guy for some reason, which is good, but may not be feasible for every target.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

18. And I'm sure they did a risk assessment...

And determined the best way to get this guy.

It happened to be capture.

Ideology is not and should not be part of the equation.

Doing what works... not what is "comfortable" should be the only influence on any decision.

[jeff47]

32. So...too young to remember the end of the Carter administration?

Or did you forget about the results when such an operation "goes wrong"?

[Autumn]

38. Nope I remember it well. This one worked and how it worked is in the article.

To compare it to what happened under Carter is apples and oranges. I also seem to remember Clinton catching a terrorist and putting him on trial.

[jeff47]

44. Do you remember invading Panama to do the same?

Do you want to invade Yemen? Do you think that would have no repercussions?

[Autumn]

48. Nobody invaded nobody to get OBLs son in law. He will be

arraigned Friday morning in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. No troops, no invasion. Not even a drone.

[jeff47]

49. Yemen is not interested in letting our agents capture people.

So how do you propose we do so without invading?

[whatchamacallit]

16. Which issue are we discussing here

the effectiveness of drones on the battlefield, or the right of the president to execute (by any means) American citizens suspected of being "enemy combatants"?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

17. Until we sit in the situation room...

As POTUS... and have difficult options laid out for us, it's not our call to make.

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. Yes, we must not question Dear Leader.

[frylock]

22. of course you embraced that sentiment when the right said that about bush, right?

[LanternWaste]

23. Until we lose the opportunity to vote...

Until we lose the opportunity to vote, it is indeed our call to make.

[Marr]

28. Servile, authoritarian follower drivel.

That's the same thing right-wingers said about Bush's arguments for invading Iraq.

[99Forever]

39. Then send your kids off to the human meatgrinder so the 1%...

... can get more profits. That's fine by me, just leave me and mine out of your world of hate and war.

[Union Scribe]

69. How long has that been your position?

And will it change the next time a Republican is in office?

[sibelian]

21. Not declaring wars on abstract concepts? nt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Refuse to participate in wars.

"Bullets cannot be recalled. They cannot be uninvented. But they can be taken out of the gun." Martin Amis

[jeff47]

33. Because we signed up for 9/11?

Sometimes, the "other side" doesn't give you the option of not participating in their violence.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. The drones don't send themselves to kill people.

[jeff47]

45. Neither do the airplanes. (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. They do it so we do it is a piss poor excuse for killing people.

[jeff47]

62. So we should ignore when they kill people? (nt)

[Marr]

27. It's not the weapon being used-- it's the power being asserted by the Executive.

I don't care if the weapon is a rifle or a missile or a bomb. When the Executive says they can target Americans for execution without any judicial oversight, that is a problem.

We're not talking about war here, or fighting in civil uprisings, or anything like that. We're talking about targeted executions. You may trust Obama with such authority, but would you trust Dick Cheney?

[jeff47]

35. No, that's not what's being talked about

Assuming you're talking about Holder, he was talking about war and civil uprisings, which should have been clear from his examples.

If you're talking about US citizens outside US jurisdiction, there is no requirement for judicial oversight - being outside US jurisdiction means they are outside the Constitution. For example, if you are arrested in France, you have no 5th amendment right against self-incrimination despite your US citizenship. French law doesn't have that right.

[Marr]

40. The FRENCH government wouldn't observe your constitutional rights, no.

The American government would.

The border is not a magical line, beyond which your government may enslave/kill/dissect you if it so chooses.

[jeff47]

43. No, the American government has no requirement to do so.

The border is not a magical line, beyond which your government may enslave/kill/dissect you if it so chooses.

If you are outside US juridiction no part of US law, including the Constitution, applies.

Whether or not you are outside US jurisdiction depends on factors beyond geography. For example, US troops are under US jurisdiction no matter where they are in the world. If you are arrested by US troops outside the geographic US, you are placed under US jurisdiction.

[Marr]

54. You're just wrong.

The Constitution puts limits on the powers of government. Those limits don't cease when you cross a line on a map.

If you're talking about an American citizen fighting on the side of an enemy army, that's something more muddled-- but to just say that the Constitution stops protecting you from your own government the moment you cross the border is just flat ass wrong.

[jeff47]

63. Try reading what I'm writing, not reading what you think

Those limits don't cease when you cross a line on a map.

Again, jurisdiction is not geography. Jurisdiction is not a line on a map.

If you're talking about an American citizen fighting on the side of an enemy army, that's something more muddled

Nope.

There's no special due process protections for US citizens. All due process protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship. All US citizenship gives are things like the right to vote and run for some offices.

So let's assume your theory is correct - the US has to obey the Constitution everywhere, so the US would have to try an apprehend a US Citizen fighting for an enemy army. After all, they have due process rights under your scenario. But the due process protections apply to all people, not US citizens. That would mean the US has to try to apprehend every single person in that enemy army, not just the US citizens. And that's obviously not the case.

Kinda shows your theory isn't quite correct.

The Constitution only applies within US jurisdiction. You can enter US jurisdiction without entering the country. Outside US jurisdiction, you are supposed to be protected by whatever country's jurisdiction you are in. Under normal circumstances, the US isn't going to physically harm someone outside US jurisdiction because that's an act of war. The AUMF makes these circumstances abnormal.

[Marr]

64. Oh, I did read it.

It's not as cut and dried as you're trying to make it.

"There's no special due process protections for US citizens. All due process protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, regardless of citizenship."

That's not settled at all. The last administration asserted just the opposite, and I expect the Obama administration would do the same. There's a long record of non-citizens being treated very differently under the law, particularly regarding detention without trial.

But it's beside the point anyway. As I said, if an American citizen is fighting for an enemy army, the situation is completely different, and the President's powers as CiC would override the need to capture the individual. If he/she *is* captured rather than killed, however, they're entitled to due process. John Walker Lindh was tried in federal court, for example. His compatriots were not.

But we're not talking about citizens fighting in foreign armies. We're talking about any citizen abroad. Your protections from your own government don't stop at the water's edge, and the President can't simply order you killed on a whim because you've taken a day trip to Tijuana.

[spin]

42. I support reasonable restrictions on any President's right to be judge, jury and executioner...

in a situation involving an American citizen on American soil.

Legally in Florida I can use lethal force to stop an attack in progress from an individual who intends to seriously injure or kill me. My decision will be reviewed by the authorities and I will face serious charges if it is determined that I acted incorrectly.

If a person verbally threatens me, I do not have a right to hunt him down and shoot him in the back before he shoots me. I have several options in such a situation such as contacting the police or filing a restraining order. I can make preparations to insure my safety such as securing my home and altering my routes when I travel to work or home. I can practice situational awareness. If I have the money I can hire profession guards.

I feel a President should have the right to order lethal force in order to stop an attack in progress from an individual on our soil that would endanger the health or life of citizens. In such a situation a President should have the option to use a armed drone for defense of our nation just as I can use a weapon for my own self defense. His decision to use such force should also be reviewed by our judicial system and he should face impeachment if there is any question that his actions were inappropriate.

If a President gets information that a group has formed that is led by an individual who plans to launch a rebellion or insurrection he has numerous options to try in order to apprehend this leader before his group strikes. I feel a drone strike on an individual who was possibly in a planning stage for an attack would not be appropriate. If the group is actually carrying out attacks a drone strike on the leader might be appropriate and legal but should be subject to review.

I do not support allowing a President to kill any American citizen on our soil that he deems a potential threat. To me that is something that a monarch or a dictator would do and an American President should never fit that description as the people of our nation would no longer be citizens but instead subjects.

I don't feel that there is anything wrong with having a good discussion in our nation on the use of drones for surveillance by law enforcement or the use of armed drones by a President against an individual in the process of attacking our nation. It's a complicated issue that should require considerable thought as such actions may infringe on our Constitutional rights.

I should point out that I have little fear that Obama will misuse drones. I do fear setting a precedent that a future President might abuse.

[The Straight Story]

50. Funny how we suddenly care so much about drone strikes when it is about us

and not some brown skinned foreign people being blown up.

Why do I care? Because our government has shown time and again that killing innocent people means nothing to them, even to the point we had yemen covering up for us.

Is a drone hits my house all the govt has to say is either 'oops, bad intel, sorry' or 'he was linked to terrorism' with no trial and no proof.

Which seems mighty fine with a bunch of folks when it is other people.

And with the ease and cheap cost of drones they can have them flying all over easier than actual and heavier planes. You don't need a crew onboard and you don't risk the lives of pilots. Cheap, easy way to spy on us and attack if need be. Not like they have to launch a cruise missile from the ocean, deploy a black hawk that is easier to see and track by folks on the ground -- drones are the killers of choice now for the US across the globe.

And what happens when they target a foreign person here and kill innocent US civilians? Those same people saying so what when it happens elsewhere will be the first to whine about.

[randome]

66. Cops make the same mistakes. They raid the wrong homes. Fire on the wrong people.

It happens. No LE is full-proof. The only recourse afterwards is, of course, suing for millions. That doesn't help when someone is injured or killed but there is nothing left to do after a 'mistake'.

I don't see any evidence that the current administration -or any previous administration- is trigger happy on U.S. soil.

[The Straight Story]

70. At least with LEO's and such people lose jobs, there are trials, etc

That does not happen with our government. We freaking had yemen lie to cover up us killing innocent people. No investigations. Every time we kill people - men, women, children - there are no trials, no evidence, just a 'take our word' approach.

They will get trigger happy here eventually, and then maybe some bigoted people will finally care about others dying and about how we are trigger happy against brown people...but it will take a white American on our soil for other people to see it as being wrong.

[Taverner]

55. Number One: Dismantle the Empire

That means closing off all but essential overseas bases. For me that would be our South Korea presence ONLY.

Number Two: Leave the "war on terra" to the cops. They're better at it. Seriously. They foiled the LA 2K plot, which would have turned parts of LA into rubble.

Number Three: Stop trying to control other countries through manipulative foreign policy.

Number Four: Instead of "National Interest" we should be thinking in terms of "Global Interest"

[freshwest]

57. +1. Only problem is that those are probably linked to trade. That's the war between bombings.

The competition will still work its way up to a conflict of some kind. The 'global interest' plan would be best. However, with all these nations, who decides what that best is?

[KG]

65. stop pretending the most of the world is our enemy.

[HughBeaumont]

68. Peace.

Most obvious answer, really.