Drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan: what's the moral issue?

[Y Bar Ranch]

and the drone hovers overhead for an hour or two while you walk to the nearest US base ? Yeah right .

The drones can keep a cap 24/7.

[PeterSibley]

On one guy? Do you think that's very likely?

[Keith Wilson]

This is silly. One does not fire missiles from a drone, a helicopter, any other kind of aircraft, or from the ground, at someone one wants to capture. Missiles are designed to blow up things and kill people. Firing a missile may or may not be the best tactic, but the fact that they're fired from a drone is pretty much irrelevant.

[PeterSibley]

The proposition is that you can surrender to a drone, lay down your weapons and survive . I seriously doubt it, as you say a drone is missile delivery vehicle. It's for killing , not taking surrenders, giving instructions about terms ... it kills and that all .

A helicopter does at least have the capacity to take a prisoner should it's crew choose to.

[Keith Wilson]

It's for killing , not taking surrenders, giving instructions about terms ... it kills and that all .

Just like a ground-launched missile, or one launched from a fixed-wing aircraft going fast and high, or from a ship. Also like an artillery shell, or many other devices designed to blow up things and kill people. A drone is just another weapon, nothing special.

[Paul Girouard]

The proposition is that you can surrender to a drone, lay down your weapons and survive . I seriously doubt it, as you say a drone is missile delivery vehicle. It's for killing , not taking surrenders, giving instructions about terms ... it kills and that all .

A helicopter does at least have the capacity to take a prisoner should it's crew choose to.

Someone is driving the drone , maybe you can't officially surrendered to one , but one can look at what your intentions are thru the eyes of the camera back to the driver in South Dakota. And the drone can be commanded to hold fire , hold position ( if the "target" has high enough value to have it stay on station , even if they have to fly another drone out if drone #1 is low on fuel), until people can be sent out.

The issue would be if the targets "value" where high enough , dead now might trump alive in a few hours when people could make it to the site. And the bigger issue could be that it's a trap to get people on site.

So , YES or maybe , is the simple answer;-))

[PeterSibley]

High value maybe, ordinary suspect ...dead.

[Paul Girouard]

High value maybe, ordinary suspect ...dead.

Maybe , or the drone just fly's away. High value I'd say dead. But that's just me.

[PeterSibley]

I guess you don't want to talk to him.

[skuthorp]

Hmm, the Nuremberg judgement rears it's head again re the operator and his drone. Kill or just fly away. So he asks his supervisor/superior and he says "kill, just in case" but it's the operators decision really, safe at home in Sth Dakota.

[PeterSibley]

Do they have war crimes trials for drone operators ? I wonder how this relates back to our moral or immoral question ?

[skuthorp]

I would say it could apply, but this is the US we are talking about and international law does not apply, it's that 'exceptional' thing again.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ro...est_Rogue.html
The site may be iffy but the facts are, I think, correct.

[PeterSibley]

Yes, it was a bit tongue in cheek, Pax Americana and all that.

That link makes hard reading.I'm sure our American friends would have heart failure ... total denial would be the only path.

[skuthorp]

"An air strike has killed a top al-Qaeda leader on the FBI's most wanted list for his role in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole warship, Yemeni officials said"
Three others in the car also. I do think that this is a good precedent to set.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/air-strike-kills-senior-alqaeda-leader-20120507-1y7lp.html

[Y Bar Ranch]

Hmm, the Nuremberg judgement rears it's head again re the operator and his drone. Kill or just fly away. So he asks his supervisor/superior and he says "kill, just in case" but it's the operators decision really, safe at home in Sth Dakota.

No it's not. In fact, it is very rarely the shooter's decision, whether the air vehicle is manned or unmanned. In 99.9% of shots, either there is a JTAC or FAC (forward air controller) on the ground in control of all the shots, or there is a senior area commander in a command center that controls the shooting. In a drone attack everything the drone operator sees, the command sees, plus whatever other feeds are coming in from other platforms manned and unmanned, plus ground information, plus etc. The operator really has a limited view of what's going on, since he is focused on his own feed. The operator, as part of the safety chain, can ultimately choose not to.

But if he was to take a shot on his own initiative he'd be court-marshalled.

[PeterSibley]

So he'd be "just following orders", where have I heard that before?

[Keith Wilson]

Once again, (a point which it seems most folks would rather ignore) there is nothing unusual about missiles fired from drones. They're no different than other kinds of weapons - sometimes it's even the same type of missile that's fired from a manned aircraft.

Try not to muddle the two together. One may reasonably object to the tactic of assassinating Al-Qaeda members in Pakistan by airstrikes, but the drones have nothing to do with it.

[PeterSibley]

Apparently Keith there is one side line to it, probably not of much concern to the US military or public but on the Pakistani street the word is that US soldiers are afraid to fight against Talibs man to man and so send their drones. Apparently its been quite a good recruiting tool for the Taliban.

[Y Bar Ranch]

So he'd be "just following orders", where have I heard that before?

not "just"

[Y Bar Ranch]

Apparently Keith there is one side line to it, probably not of much concern to the US military or public but on the Pakistani street the word is that US soldiers are afraid to fight against Talibs man to man and so send their drones. Apparently its been quite a good recruiting tool for the Taliban.

If the Paks let us in, we'd be knocking doors down in Talibistan tomorrow and the smart ones know it. But there are spin doctors everywhere and stupid people to spin their BS to.

[pefjr]

Something else is becoming very clear to me, at least it is very clear with the members of WBF. Foreign members see this very differently than Americans. I think they see this issue more clearly than we do. Congress has not even giving this issue a second thought, Americans in general have distanced themselves from these issues as they are not personally affected. Their sons are not being drafted. Drones are not being fired in Kansas. This war is running over ten years and it is as pointless now as it was 3 mos. after the invasion. Neither Presidential candidate has debated this issue. It is simple accepted that The US has the right to carry out war anywhere it decides there is an enemy, but no other country has the same right. Interesting that the Chinese strategy is to finance this. Is the Creditor responsible morally? At any rate, I believe the foreigners are gonna have to be the ones to change thinking on this issue, and enforce International Law, as Americans have become accustom to Imperialism and have lost control of their Gov't.

[Osborne Russell]

I agree Pefjr, but who is "the Creditor"?

[Osborne Russell]

. . . drones have nothing to do with it.

I don't get it either.

[PhaseLockedLoop]

Right or wrong, what does this have to do with drones? If we used piloted aircraft, or sent in military personnel on the ground, what would be the difference? You obviously think that attacking those believed to be Al-Qaeda members in Pakistan is a bad idea. You may be right; I have mixed feelings about it, but I can't see that the choice of weapons makes much difference. If we're going to do it, missiles fired from drones seem a reasonable balance of risk and effectiveness. Whether we should do it - that's another issue entirely.

Artillery and fixed-wing bombing are techniques used to destroy enemy concentrations or infrastructure in a war-contested area, or to support ground troops. Ground troops operate in the war-contested area. Drones are now being used for assassinations in countries not at war with the US. These acts are not practical using artillery or bombing, though god knows they've been used anyway. The US military has been used before to eliminate individuals outside war zones, but it has generally been special ops people doing it. The whole idea of killing off inconvenient people wherever they are has little to do with war--it's a technique of social control. Use of drones is cost-effective and, according to Obama, not acts of war, since no US troops are endangered, so there is no requirement get Congressional approval for their use.

THAT'S WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT DRONES.

[Osborne Russell]

according to Obama, not acts of war, since no US troops are endangered, so there is no requirement get Congressional approval for their use.

THAT'S WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT DRONES.

Obama's argument is bogus but that's not the drones' doing.

[pefjr]

Where does Obama draw the line? A Nuclear weapon would certainly be overkill, so somewhere in between is 'acceptable collateral damage'. How is this 'acd' measured in lives? Does life lost in the twin towers of the 01 event have more value than a Pakistani child? There seems to be a lot of verbal(political) concern for the life of an American Soldier, but Obama still keeps these soldiers in harm's way for no logical gain, so brings up the question of lack of leadership. The VP has more leadership ability than Obama, and has said a few times he would go against the political Congressional and MIC direction, and has advised Obama(unsuccessfully) to do so.

[BrianY]

Where does Obama draw the line? A Nuclear weapon would certainly be overkill, so somewhere in between is 'acceptable collateral damage'. How is this 'acd' measured in lives? Does life lost in the twin towers of the 01 event have more value than a Pakistani child? There seems to be a lot of verbal(political) concern for the life of an American Soldier, but Obama still keeps these soldiers in harm's way for no logical gain, so brings up the question of lack of leadership. The VP has more leadership ability than Obama, and has said a few times he would go against the political Congressional and MIC direction, and has advised Obama(unsuccessfully) to do so.

That same questions/arguments apply to every president who authorizes offensive millitary action. Obama is not unique in this regard.

What weapons do you use? What are the political, logistical, moral and practical issues surrounding the use of each type of weapon? When the enemy is hiding among civilians, what level of 'collateral damage" is acceptable?

The answers to all of the questions are to be found in the actions taken and their results. Obviously, Obama has drawn the line short of nuclear weapons, ground troops, manned aircraft, etc. 'ACD" is obviously measured in single digits per incident. As for Obama "keeping soildiers in harms way for no logical gain"...that point is very debatable.

RANT ON : If we are, as George Bush declared on 9/11/01, "at war" with terrorists and terrorism, why shouldn't we seek to kill them wherever they are hiding just as we would with any other millitary enemy? - especially when the countries that allow them within their borders are not willing or able to do anything about them?

Now before you leap to all sorts of incorrct conclusions, I am NOT a "war hawk" and I am NOT one of those folks who thinks that America should do whatever it wants wherever it wants. I am just trying to look at the situation objectively.

The "drone problem" is as much a result of Pakistan's policy decisions as it is ours. If Pakistan chose to pursue the radical Muslims inside the country, we would not feel compelled to do so. If we are to wage and win the so-called 'war on terrorism" and have any hope at all of builiding a stable Afghanistan (something that appears to be in our long-term national interest) then we MUST eliminate these people. We cannot do so by diplomacy, and the Pakistanis won't do it for us, so what choice do we have? Given all of the conflicting and competeing considerations , it seems to me that the drones are the PERFECT weapon - at least, the most perfect available - to achieve our nation's objective of eliminating these threats. In any case, do you really believe that Pakistan is not tacitly if not openly consenting to these raids? It is in their interest to get rid of these people too - even more so if they can blame the US for it.

I'd love it if we could call all the troops and drones home and have everyone live happily ever after. The thing is, that's not even remotely possible. Bush set us on a path after 9/11 and in order to protect ourselve in the long term, we have to follow that path through to a conclusion that is in OUR best national interest. Unfortunately that means that a lot of people have to die. THAT'S the kind of decsions that LEADERS have to make - that Bush made, that Obama made and makes every day. You're way WAY off base saying that Obama lacks "leadership" in this regard. He IS leading...but it may not be in the direction you want him to go.

To answer you question about acceptable collateral damage - Some would say that the answer is "as many as it takes to ensure the security of the United States" Other would say that there is NO acceptable number. I say that the answer depends entirely on what you think the goals of US policy should be. Goals cannot be achieved without some sacrifice somewhere - even, and unfortunatley, sometimes including innocent human lives.

And this is the thing that pisses me off most about my fellow liberals. Sure, there are conservatives out there who are complete wackjobs when it comes to this sort of thing, but it is eqaully insane for liberals to think that if we brought al the troops home and we just nicer to eachother that everything would be OK. Unfortunatley that's NOT how the world works. We don't need "hippie-dippy peace and love" policies any more than we need 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policies - they're BOTH dangerous. What we need are policies built on an accurate understanding of reality. I think that Obama is trying to work in that zone of reason and rationality. Unfortunately that puts him at odds with the extremes of both ends of the political spectrum. The conservatives say he's not tough eneough and the liberals say he's too tough.

To me, that puts him right about where he should be.

RANT OFF

[pefjr]

RANT OFF

Ideological dilemma. At least you are in the thinking/questioning process of attempting to justify the premeditated murder. You can't justify it with the lies coming from our Gov't. The Taliban is no threat to us in the boundaries of our country. Neither is the remainder of Al Qaeda. Nothing that could not be handled from home. The MIC is your enemy. The MIC is the threat and the political propaganda machine that is destroying America. You are not alone in not seeing this cancer, and that is the problem.

[Keith Wilson]

Sure, there are conservatives out there who are complete wackjobs when it comes to this sort of thing, but it is eqaully insane for liberals to think that if we brought al the troops home and we just nicer to eachother that everything would be OK. Unfortunatley that's NOT how the world works. We don't need "hippie-dippy peace and love" policies any more than we need 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policies - they're BOTH dangerous. What we need are policies built on an accurate understanding of reality.

I couldn't agree more. First-class rant.

[PeterSibley]

The "drone problem" is as much a result of Pakistan's policy decisions as it is ours. If Pakistan chose to pursue the radical Muslims inside the country, we would not feel compelled to do so. If we are to wage and win the so-called 'war on terrorism" and have any hope at all of builiding a stable Afghanistan (something that appears to be in our long-term national interest) then we MUST eliminate these people. We cannot do so by diplomacy, and the Pakistanis won't do it for us, so what choice do we have? Given all of the conflicting and competeing considerations , it seems to me that the drones are the PERFECT weapon - at least, the most perfect available - to achieve our nation's objective of eliminating these threats. In any case, do you really believe that Pakistan is not tacitly if not openly consenting to these raids? It is in their interest to get rid of these people too - even more so if they can blame the US for it.

That seems to me the nub of it. By current reports there is NO WAY a government in the image of a western democracy is going to be established in Afghanistan, the current kleptocracy is shameful and the sooner it disappears the better.

The only "stable government" in Afghanistan's immediate future is the Taliban. We don't like it, we abhor almost everything about it but when we pull out it's going to be them and no one else. It will very likely be stable.

The rest is BS, we can't kill every fundamentalist Muslim in that area short of a few tens of MIRVed ICBMs and that is not going to happen..... thank God! Drones will kill the occasional individual ,soldiers on the ground will bankrupt the West in the numbers required over the time needed.

We better get used to talking to our enemies.

[BrianY]

Ideological dilemma. At least you are in the thinking/questioning process of attempting to justify the premeditated murder. You can't justify it with the lies coming from our Gov't. The Taliban is no threat to us in the boundaries of our country. Neither is the remainder of Al Qaeda. Nothing that could not be handled from home. The MIC is your enemy. The MIC is the threat and the political propaganda machine that is destroying America. You are not alone in not seeing this cancer, and that is the problem.

Three things:

1) So you think that we should only deal with threats that are within our borders? I disagree vehemently. It is often too late to deal with threats once they've reached our shores.

2) "MIC" ? ? ? ?

3) re: 'Premedidtated murder" - We are at war and we take time to identify, target and kill our enemies...just as we've done in wars in the past and just as they have done and are trying to do to us. Are all deaths resulting from planned and premeditated actions in war to be considered "premeditated murder"? If not, why is this situation different?

[pefjr]

So you think that we should only deal with threats that are within our borders? I disagree vehemently. It is often too late to deal with threats once they've reached our shores.

That is the job of the UN. We are a threat to every country on this rock. We have nukes pointed down the throat of many. Do you think those countries have a right to come outside their borders to deal with the threat? What is the difference between a US drone fired into a village of other country and what we call a terrorist bomb blown up in a cafe in Israel? If it is legit, why does the US not officially acknowledge using drones?

MIC: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=1050&bih=1595

Are all deaths resulting from planned and premeditated actions in war to be considered "premeditated murder"? If not, why is this situation different?

No, but, when we continue to use a weapon that kills innocent people and is a violation of International law, then it is PM. Do you think because the US is doing the firing that it is not murder? Is the location of the murder on the battlefield? Where is the battlefield for Drones? If Obama has an unlimited undefined battlefield, is he the only one that gets to wage war with those rules? Again, if a drone is fired in a Tupelo, Mississippi cafe and kills 20 people and 2 are "legitimate targets of the ....say.....the IRA... then what? Is that a terrorist or a legit warfare because they have a right as you said, to take the war outside their boundaries. What about the 18 innocents? Collateral Damage?

You need to research both the MIC and The International Law Violations of the US Gov't.

I disagree vehemently

. Vehemently? ... no you don't, you have doubts, or you would not have started this thread. You are seeking an education on this issue because it bothers you.

[BrianY]

That is the job of the UN.

As much as I support the idea of the UN, their track record is not too good in curbing terrorism. Did the UN negotiate with Bin Laden? Hasth eUN stepped into the situation in Pakistan? I don't think so. In any case, if a threat is made directly to a country - ANY country - I think that the country is within its rights to seek to counter that threat - ideally through peaceful negotiation and with the involvement of the UN but if/when those things don't work, by whatever means necessary.

We are a threat to every country on this rock. We have nukes pointed down the throat of many.

Yep. And many countries are a threat to us. Some even "...have nukes pointed down (our) throat..." That's the reality of the world.

Do you think those countries have a right to come outside their borders to deal with the threat?

Yes. They can try it if they want to. That's what the Islamic terrorists are trying to do. What they DO NOT have the right to is to expect that they (or us) can do so without risk of retalliation.

What is the difference between a US drone fired into a village of other country and what we call a terrorist bomb blown up in a cafe in Israel?

Not much, really. One man's terrorist is another man's patriot. When the colonials shot at the British from behind trees and rocks as the British made their way back to Boston after the fights in Lexington and Concord, they were acting as terrorists as far as the British were concerned. Yet we hail them as "patriots".

If it is legit, why does the US not officially acknowledge using drones?

I have no idea, but your question is totally irrelevent. The acknowledgement or lack thereof does not confer or deny legitimacy. It is no secret that they are being used to wage war against suspected terrorists.


Re: "MIC" ahh yes, the thing that Ike warned us about.

No, but, when we continue to use a weapon that kills innocent people and is a violation of International law, then it is PM. Do you think because the US is doing the firing that it is not murder?

I think that ALL deaths in war are "premeditated murder" in that all deaths result from some degree of planning and forethought. However, we have conveniently determined that killing ones enemies is not "murder" unless those enemies are our prisoners.

As for the drones being a violation of international law, I think that's not clear. From what I understand, if the country gives its consent, then there's no violation of International Law. Although Pakistan has never explicitly given its blessing to the drone strikes, if the REALLY wanted them to stop, they could easily make them stop.

I have much more sympathy for the argument that the use of any weapon that kills innocents is IMMORAL. As far as I'm concerned THAT'S a point worth arguing over.

Is the location of the murder on the battlefield? Where is the battlefield for Drones? If Obama has an unlimited undefined battlefield, is he the only one that gets to wage war with those rules?

As the various terrorist attacks that have happened all over the world have made clear, the "battlefield" is EVERYWHERE so the battlefield for drones is anywhere the enemy is to be found. Rememebr, we're not fighting pitched battles against nations with clearly defined boundries a la WWII. Vietnam showed us that a guerrilla war against a superior force will be fought everywhere and anywhere the enemy is located. Terrorism is such a war. We can either retreat to our fortified positions and wait for attack or we can seek and destroy the enemy on his own ground in the hope that we thereby prevent him from attacking our "safe" positions in the rear.

Again, if a drone is fired in a Tupelo, Mississippi cafe and kills 20 people and 2 are "legitimate targets of the ....say.....the IRA... then what? Is that a terrorist or a legit warfare because they have a right as you said, to take the war outside their boundaries. What about the 18 innocents? Collateral Damage?

From our POV, no, it's absolutely not acceptable. From the IRA's perspective, it is. It is war.

You need to research both the MIC and The International Law Violations of the US Gov't.

I know about the MIC. The MIC paid for the food I ate, the house I lived in and the clothes I wore growing up and also a significant part of my college education. Th MIC has an alarming influence on our government policies. It also employs a heck of a lot of people. It is a major problem.

Vehemently? ... no you don't, you have doubts, or you would not have started this thread. You are seeking an education on this issue because it bothers you.

let me clarify:

I "vehemently disagree" that we should only deal with threats after they are within our borders. I was disagreeing with what I thought you said.

I have no doubut that drones are not inherently immoral - no more so than any other conventional weapon. I perceive that other people do not agree, however and I'm curious as to why that is. Thus my original question.

I am also positive that the policies that dictate how drones and other weapons are used may be moral or immoral, but I'm equally positive that "morality" is not absolute and objective and depends entirely on the the persepctive of the one considering the issue.

I am also positive that the "rules of war" that worked well in the past do not apply to this conflict and although we have an moral obligation to act to preserve life whenever possible, the nature of this war is that it is not always possible. The fact that our enemy is not a nation, not an easily identifiable army and that it exists withn and among civilian populations means that it is inevitable that civilians will be killed. I don't like it. I don't want it to happen, but when it comes right down to it, we have a choice - take the fight to the enemy or wait until the enemy takes it to us here in the US. I'd rather do the former than the latter.

[pefjr]

I am also positive that the policies that dictate how drones and other weapons are used may be moral or immoral, but I'm equally positive that "morality" is not absolute and objective and depends entirely on the the persepctive of the one considering the issue.

But water boarding is torture?

[BrianY]

But water boarding is torture?

Do you like chocolate ice cream?




(Your question is a non sequitur......Water boarding has nothing to do with this discussion. )

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I certainly don't have a problem with the US use of unmanned aircraft to kill people who are killing US citizens.

[2MeterTroll]

1. we are not at war with pakistan.

2. our drone strikes are not clean hits.

3. in tis case we are the terrorists.... Again!

4. we have other methods to deal with these folks that are far more precise.

5. the battle field is not every where or we would be using drones inside most European countries.

6. America is meddling...Again and trying to install a power structure that we can deal with. this hasn't worked yet.


no matter the shine you try to achieve in this we are not acting honorable or morel. We didnt go to war with Afghanistan we went to war with a vapor of terrorist. Russia warned us about Afghanistan now we will feel the pain of trying to dominate a culture that wont bend to or will.

Want to stop terror stop letting these folks terrorize you; our response so far is to let them win every stinking time. its our response that dictates wether the terrorists win and we have let them for 10 years.

[pefjr]

[QUOTE=Andrew Craig-Bennett;3406748]I certainly don't have a problem with the US use of unmanned aircraft to kill people who are killing US citizens.[/QUOTET] That is not the issue. You do understand the moral issue of using Drones the way they have been used in the past , correct? That is the issue, and it can not be side stepped.

[BrianY]

[QUOTE=pefjr;3407084]

I certainly don't have a problem with the US use of unmanned aircraft to kill people who are killing US citizens.[/QUOTET] That is not the issue. You do understand the moral issue of using Drones the way they have been used in the past , correct? That is the issue, and it can not be side stepped.

So, to get back to my original question, are drones Inherently immoral or does the immorality reside in the policies that result in their use?

If we were using bombs dropped from conventional aircraft instead of drones, would that be any different? How about if we were using snipers with rifles or guys with knives instead of drones? Would that be different?

[pefjr]

[QUOTE=BrianY;3407243]

So, to get back to my original question, are drones Inherently immoral or does the immorality reside in the policies that result in their use?

Why do you and others keep trying to side step? This has been outlined for you for 3 pages. I have no idea why ACB posted that. It was as if he didn't read a single post in this thread. Now, you are starting back on page 1 with your question. Can't you answer the post #134? I want to know who has convicted Cheney and Bush for water boarding, but defends Obama's illegal drone policy. I want to see names. Is that a fair question? or too embarrassing?

[BrianY]

[QUOTE=pefjr;3407287]

Why do you and others keep trying to side step? This has been outlined for you for 3 pages. I have no idea why ACB posted that. It was as if he didn't read a single post in this thread. Now, you are starting back on page 1 with your question. Can't you answer the post #134? I want to know who has convicted Cheney and Bush for water boarding, but defends Obama's illegal drone policy. I want to see names. Is that a fair question? or too embarrassing?

I'm not trying to sidestep anything. To me it is you that is avoiding the question. You've written about the way that they're used and the morality of that, but you've never answered the question I have repeatedly asked: are drones inherently immoral weapons? NOT is the way that they are currently being used immoral, but are they in and of themselves inherently immoral?

As for your question I post #134 - it made no sense, conveyed no meaning and therefore was unanswerable. In answer to you question above, I will say two things:

1. As far as I know, Bush and Cheney have not been convicted of anything, so the answer
has to be "nobody".

2. Your question assumes that the current use of drones is "illegal" but that is a matter of considerable debate.

Now, I will try to answer the question I think you're trying to ask: is there an inconsistency in condemning Bush & Co. for employing water boarding while supporting Obama's use of drone attacks?

My answer is there is no inconsistency because they are not equivalent in any way. If I am interpreting you correctly, your question assumes that they are, but on what basis do you make this assumption ?

I see torture- and water boarding is certainly torture IMO - as immoral for the same reason that I see executing prisoners of war immoral. Once prisoners are rendered incapable of resistance and they are no longer participating in the conflict - when they are literally at the mercy of their captors - any sort of abuse or torture is immoral. In the case of drones killing terrorists, this situation does not exist. The terrorists are participating in a conflict with us, they are capable of defending themselves and are not at our mercy. They are free to fight or flee.

Ask a coherent question and I will be happy to try to answer it.

[Syed]

I certainly don't have a problem with the US use of unmanned aircraft to kill people who are killing US citizens.

Probably, the vast majority in west agrees with you Mr. Craig-Bennett, that's why these attacks are continuing.

There is a minority opposing this weapon and considers it as extrajudicial killings. Who knows? may be the majority is right.

Mr Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, told the BBC: "My concern is that these drones, these Predators, are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

"The onus is really on the government of the United States to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary executions, extrajudicial executions, are not in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons."

[Tom Hunter]

Trying to stay on topic, in spite of the interesting tangents

I see no moral difference between blowing someone up with a bomb or bullet from a drone and doing the same from a manned aircraft, or a squad of soldiers on the ground. There is a long history of people calling a new weapon immoral, the morality of using crossbows on Christians was discussed at Second Council of the Lateran in 1139. From a moral point of view this are all minor discussions on the hugely more important question of when is it ok to kill people.

I do think there is a moral issue with the use of drones. Not “is a drone a moral weapon” but: does the use of drones make it too easy for us to become an immoral society with an amoral government? Y bar points out that the military makes a very serious professional effort to be sure the drones are hitting the right target. What happens to our society when the majority nolonger cares about that? If killing becomes easy do we get comfortable with it? Is it morally acceptable to have a government that is comfortable killing people? Is it morally acceptable to have a citizenship that is comfortable killing people?
The current use of drones concerns me because it seems to be moving us in a very amoral direction.

[pefjr]

[QUOTE=BrianY;3407320]

Your wiggling, reaching, diverting. Lets make something clear. I have always said the method or current use of the drone is immoral. No more side stepping, please. What makes the policy immoral is the indiscriminate killing of innocents.

As for your question I post #134 - it made no sense, conveyed no meaning and therefore was unanswerable.BrianY

Then you answered it. In effect you are saying, Premeditated Murder of women and children with Obama's drone use is both legal and moral, because they are participating in a conflict(why did you use conflict instead of war?). Women, children, and other innocents are "capable of defending themselves and are not at our mercy. They are free to fight or flee." buttt..ttt.....I see torture- and water boarding is certainly torture IMO - as immoral for the same reason that I see executing prisoners of war immoral.

Further back in this thread, justification for the illegal use of drones was that it saves American lives, so nothing else matters. No doubt it has. I think it is has been proven that WB saved lives and yet no POW, and no innocents were killed, yet many called for an end to this 'torture" and Obama ended this use. So, we can say that our Nobel PP winning Prez. and his defenders can't see the several hundred innocent lives lost, and illegal use, as well as they could see the publicizing and political advantage of criticizing his predecessor. Another case of a very expensive ideology.

[Osborne Russell]

What makes the policy immoral is the indiscriminate killing of innocents.

Exactly. The policy is immoral, not the drone. You can kill indiscriminately with a rock. Does that make rocks immoral?

[BrianY]

[QUOTE=pefjr;3407654]

Your wiggling, reaching, diverting. Lets make something clear. I have always said the method or current use of the drone is immoral. No more side stepping, please. What makes the policy immoral is the indiscriminate killing of innocents.

I'm honestly not trying to "side step" anything. I understand that you think the current USE of drones is immoral. That's perfectly clear. What I am asking is if you think the drones themselves are immoral. You still haven't clearly answered that question. (Separate the USE from THE DRONES themselves and consider only the drones)

Then you answered it.

I'm glad my assumptions and interpretations of your intent turned out to be accurate

In effect you are saying, Premeditated Murder of women and children with Obama's drone use is both legal and moral, because they are participating in a conflict(why did you use conflict instead of war?).

No. I dispute your characterization of the drone strikes and the resulting deaths as "Premeditated murder". Your words, not mine. What I AM saying is that the deaths resulting from the drone strikes are within the normal parameters of warfare. War has ALWAYS resulted in the deaths of innocents. Such deaths are undesirable, regrettable and should be avoided when possible. They also SUCK BIG TIME. I don't like it and I'm pretty sure that the President and his military commanders don't either. They are not, however, somehow exceptional or beyond the pale. They are an inevitable part of war and we're fighting a war.

As for the word choice, I dunno. It's war. War is conflict. Not all conflict is war, though. Why does it matter in this particular context?

Women, children, and other innocents are "capable of defending themselves and are not at our mercy. They are free to fight or flee." buttt..ttt.....I see torture- and water boarding is certainly torture IMO - as immoral for the same reason that I see executing prisoners of war immoral.

I don't see what point you're trying to make by this. Is there a question or point you'd like to raise?

Further back in this thread, justification for the illegal use of drones was that it saves American lives, so nothing else matters.

I don't think I said this. My view is that the use of drones does save American lives and that is ONE justification for their use. I wouldn't agree that "nothing else matters". Far from it. (And there you go again, using the word "illegal" when the question of the legality of the strikes is not settled.).

No doubt it has. I think it is has been proven that WB saved lives

Has it really?

and yet no POW, and no innocents were killed, yet many called for an end to this 'torture" and Obama ended this use. So, we can say that our Nobel PP winning Prez. and his defenders can't see the several hundred innocent lives lost, and illegal use, as well as they could see the publicizing and political advantage of criticizing his predecessor. Another case of a very expensive ideology.

Now you're ranting. I see a difference between torture and killing people in war - as I've explained above. You say there isn't any difference but offer no rationale or reason for that position. Since you are unable to understand my POV, you conclude that I and pepole like me are a) insane, b) morally bankrupt c) inconsistent, d) only interested in political advantage or some combination of all of these. I however look at your complete inability or unwillingness to explain the reasosn WHY you think these things and conclude that you're completely irrational.

Thus we're at an impasse. I've told you WHY I think the way I do and you've told me...nothing except that drone strikes are illegal and immoral. Period. The conversation cannot go any further because there's nothing left to discuss.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

[BrianY]

Exactly. The policy is immoral, not the drone. You can kill indiscriminately with a rock. Does that make rocks immoral?

Ah ha! Fiinally a clear answer to my original question! Thank you!

[pefjr]

[QUOTE=BrianY;3407935]

Since you are unable to understand my POV, you conclude that I and pepole like me are a) insane, b) morally bankrupt c) inconsistent, d) only interested in political advantage or some combination of all of these.

I will make my own conclusions, thank you. Which I already have posted long ago. Some in the US Army used your same reasoning to justify the massacre at Sand Creek, at My Lai, and many others, but this as you say has already been discussed. My hope is this discussion will open some eyes.

[Osborne Russell]

Ah ha! Fiinally a clear answer to my original question! Thank you!

You're welcome.

[Osborne Russell]

I will make my own conclusions, thank you. Which I already have posted long ago. Some in the US Army used your same reasoning to justify the massacre at Sand Creek, at My Lai, and many others, but this as you say has already been discussed. My hope is this discussion will open some eyes.

I see clearly an opaque wall in your reasoning. You want to about the policies involved in Sand Creek, etc., and I'm right with you. Then you say the use of drones is a simple extension of these policies, which makes no sense at all.

Still, I'm curious as to your lumping them together. If the end purpose of this were not Obama-criticism, any criticism of the US Army, however factual, indeed any reference to it that wasn't an outpouring of glowing mythology, would be considered America-hating and not supporting the troops. You're way out on a limb.