What, no Rand Paul thread?

[Ben]

[fivekatz]

Rand Paul may have had some correctness on his side when he puts a spotlight on the entire expansion of Presidential power that was granted to Bush 43 in response to 9-11 and has been closely guarded by Obama. And frankly rather than cloture as it has been used in recent years Paul demonstrated what obstruction is supposed to look like.

But whether it was poorly thought out or Rand Paul is a just a loony-tune, 4/5th of his talking points were crazy and inflammatory at best and at worst is a step towards inciting another Oklahoma City incident.

I applaud put a spotlight on the entire issue of drone use, which is a whole separate debate. The crazy stuff he said makes it easy to dismiss him and some of it was self-serving but drone technology is so new that what the rules of use should be need to smoked out but I happen to believe that drones are a better solution than invading a country to catch a single or a group of terrorists and if the world is going to fight terror proactively that is always going to be a dirty business.

[yodajazz]

For me, this is the major area where I disagree with Obama. But I am one who questions the validity of 'preemptive strikes, whether domestic or on foreign soil. The only exception I could see would be a military theater of war. Otherwise, it amounts to execution without a trial. Also it is a violation of another nation's
sovereignty. We would not permit another nation to kill people here, especially by bombing. Besides 'combatants' being killed, I'm pretty sure others are also killed in these attacks. So, in fact I see it as mostly counter-productive. I would ask, if doesn't create more enemies, than it destroys. Clinton used it also. This included attempts to get Bin Laden. Though I disagree with many of his views, I admire Ron Paul, for bringing up the subject of "blowback" in one of his campaign videos. So why cant the issue be brought up for public discussion about drone strikes, in general. I'm sure, that I disagree with Rand on many things also, like the video commentator.

For me the simple test of what is right or wrong, is asking the question whether I would approve of the same thing being done in my community. Or in other words: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." And in fact this whole 'new' controversy, is the part of the principle that is , doing unto us, what we have done to others.

[trish]

Before the expansion of presidential powers on 9-11, did Bush have the authority (never mind the mental wherewithal) to shoot down (with drones or missies launched from more conventional craft) the commercial planes filled wih innocent civilians that were heading toward their targets on 9-11? If I'm correct the president did and still has that authority and this is the kind of power Obama is reserving for the executive.

[hippifried]

Before the expansion of presidential powers on 9-11, did Bush have the authority (never mind the mental wherewithal) to shoot down (with drones or missies launched from more conventional craft) the commercial planes filled wih innocent civilians that were heading toward their targets on 9-11? If I'm correct the president did and still has that authority and this is the kind of power Obama is reserving for the executive.

Butt butt butt... They're DRONES! Doesn't that make everything billions of times more evil & horriblerer? Somebody said so on YouTube. Actual Presidential powers are never at issue as long as permission is granted for all actions before hand by the great cabal, which currently consists of Rush Limbaugh, Ronnie & Randy Paul, the stuffed corpse of L Ron Hubbard, & Noam Chomsky.

This damn Barry O'Bama guy just won't live up to expectations! I guess we'll have to take away the Irish potatoes (...oes) again.

[Stavros]

For me, this is the major area where I disagree with Obama. But I am one who questions the validity of 'preemptive strikes, whether domestic or on foreign soil. The only exception I could see would be a military theater of war. Otherwise, it amounts to execution without a trial. Also it is a violation of another nation's
sovereignty. We would not permit another nation to kill people here, especially by bombing. Besides 'combatants' being killed, I'm pretty sure others are also killed in these attacks. So, in fact I see it as mostly counter-productive. I would ask, if doesn't create more enemies, than it destroys. Clinton used it also. This included attempts to get Bin Laden. Though I disagree with many of his views, I admire Ron Paul, for bringing up the subject of "blowback" in one of his campaign videos. So why cant the issue be brought up for public discussion about drone strikes, in general. I'm sure, that I disagree with Rand on many things also, like the video commentator.

For me the simple test of what is right or wrong, is asking the question whether I would approve of the same thing being done in my community. Or in other words: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." And in fact this whole 'new' controversy, is the part of the principle that is , doing unto us, what we have done to others.

Setting aside the rights a President has, I think you have raised the crucial issue that ought to be a dominant theme in political discussion. The arguments in favour of the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles [UAVs] or Drones are that they are an effective counter-terrorism method that minimises collateral damage and casualties, that they reduce any dependence on combat troops in theatre, and that the cost of military engagement is therefore significantly reduced. Against this is the claim, on many occasions supported by fact, that collateral damage and civilian casualties DO take place; that the use of Drones increases hostility to the US motivating more rather than less potential attacks on US targets -(payback for drones deaths was one motive for the Times Square bomber); that it violates the sovereignty of states; that it is illegal under international law; and that it is promoting a new development in the arms race which must inevitably produce Drones for 'unfriendly regimes' - in this context, are Drones more worrying than nuclear weapons, be they developed by Iran or North Korea?

I think for Obama the key element is the absence of boots on the ground and the costs and complications that result from sending troops to foreign countries. Strategically, Obama inherited from Bush unresolved issues in the Middle East and South Asia -will they ever be resolved?- from which a strategic shift would be considered by critics a 'defeat' or 'weakening' of US influence in the region, as some must feel may happen with the progressive withdrawal from Afghanistan. Drones enable US military objectives to continue without the human cost to US service personnel, but do not address any of the fundamental problems of democracy, economic growth and good governance that cause so much violence and disruption in the region. Indeed, Drones may make it harder for the US to 'win hearts and minds' and further alienate ordinary people from the best of US intentions.

This link is to a long but serious discussion of Drones and strategy from a recent issue of International Affairs, highly recommended.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/de.../89_1Boyle.pdf

[trish]

1. It easy to see first hand why it is politically expedient to use drones rather than troops. I know that I personally would rather see my family and friends in the military stationed behind a joystick in Nevada than on the ground in Afghanistan and making incursions into Pakistan. That’s a big PLUS for the use of drones.

2. Political expedience on the domestic side makes it easier to slip a war (peace keeping missions, liberation, whatever it’s called) or two past the Congress and the electorate. That’s a big MINUS for drones.

3. I don’t know the statistics on collateral damage and how it differs between the use of drones and more conventional aerial strikes. The injustice of having your son, your wife, your mother declared a victim of collateral damage adds the grief of their loss; but being told the person responsible was robotically operating a drone one continent and one ocean away must feel particularly unjust. Another big MINUS for drones.

4. Someday, probably not very far off, drones will be in the hands of rogue states and terrorist gangs. But this is neither a plus nor a minus for our use of drones, because it will happen regardless of whether we continue in their use.

I suspect the widespread use of drones in the near future will neutralize objection (3) that death by robot is more objectionable than death by a bullet fired from behind the rocks and the trees. For me the big objection is (2). Already the U.S. is too readily inclined to “solve” problems by asserting its military might. We don’t need anything to encourage that inclination. For me the big argument for the use of drones is (1). The first guns already put soldiers further from the act the act of killing. Long range rifles are fired from hidden remote locations. Artillery can be fired tens of miles from the front. Mothers want their soldiers to be safe...at all costs. Drone technology is just an extension of the past capacities of military weaponry. It was always pointed in the direction of remote operation and deadly efficiency.

Thanks Stavros for the link. Try to read later this weekend.

[fivekatz]

The purest says that as a nation we do not engage in pre-emptive attacks or assignation.

The Neo-Con says that we invade and occupy countries where potential terrorists are hiding, hunt them down with conventional military plus intelligence, capture high value detainees, torture them into telling us a bunch of BS we want to hear and then leave them to rot at Gitmo.

The current Administration says when you can't get at a potential terrorist without use a large forces, you don't physically invade Pakistan and occupy, you target the suspect with a drone and kill them. Even when there is collateral damage it is a lot less than you'd incur if you went the Neo-Con route and it costs less beyond just blood but also in treasure.

Terrorism is not going away and just because there hasn't been a major incident on US soil since 2001 doesn't mean it has.

None of these choices are good. The purest waits to get hit. The Neo-Con jumps on the hit or creates war after war (Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia) to get at terrorists, the use of drones does create a execution without due process and does not give authorities a chance to interrogate.

Terrorism like insurgency largely nullifies conventional military defense techniques. It is a dirty business any way you look at. The fear of course is where drone technology will go not only in the hands of US Federal government and/or when the government changes will that power be used wisely but as time goes on it will expand all over the planet.

But for the moment I personally think it is the best of a bad set of choices and seriously doubt if any American would be questioning this if the World Trade Center was still smoldering.

[Ben]

[yodajazz]

....

This link is to a long but serious discussion of Drones and strategy from a recent issue of International Affairs, highly recommended.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/de.../89_1Boyle.pdf

I read the whole thing. Wow! He makes many of the same arguments, that I have considered, but goes into more scholarly detail. He makes many interesting claims, such as saying the US is going beyond targeting leadership, to targeting ordinary foot soldiers, in some cases. They are more likely to have stronger ties to their communities, thus making anti-US backlash more likely. I noticed the deep irony, in his statement that innocent people in target area, feel "terror" about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and being caught in a US drone attack. Another line that was amusing to me, came from an unnamed State Dept official, who was reported to say that, "three men, observed by surveillance, doing jumping jacks, is considered by some to be solid evidence of a 'terrorist training camp'.

I understand Obama's position of not being able to appear weak on 'terrorism'. I think a real public debate, would make him appear more reasonable, should he choose, to emphasize more strategic objectives, over drone strikes. I know that most on this forum are not as 'religious' as I claim to be. But for me, I am disappointed that religious leadership, does not speak on US drones, in terms of moral issues. Instead many look at sexual conduct as the major barometer of public morality. Killing people, in distant lands, with no names, and no accountability as to why in most cases, and not even being able to verify who and how many were killed, or injured, is damn near universally approved here.
Not even considering what those community we attack may feel, goes directly against one of the two commandments, Jesus left the world. But religious or not, a person who thinks and feels deeply about human issues, might understand there are always consequences, for the taking of human life without adequate legal framework to do so. "Blowback", is one of several terms that could be used to describe this.

One last thing from the article, that I also considered. How likely is that someone from a remote area in Yemen is going to directly harm something in the US homeland, so that his immediate execution is nescessary? Thanks much for the link Stavos.