A single point of oversight, divorced from the operation is not better than multiple, who have the incentive to use this tool, despite the constant civilian casualties, because the alternative is the risk of casualties from the boots on the ground they command directly…?
Not an improvement? Do you have any criteria for good/bad here?
Those are some crazy leaps of reasoning. The president isn’t inherently “divorced” from anything and boots on the ground are not always the sole alternative as there’s also the option of doing neither.
I guess I’m just curious if you think the executives of other countries should also have the power to kill indiscriminately with no consequences or oversight. Would you be applying the same line of reasoning if we were talking about, say, Putin?
He’s not getting shot at lol of course he’s more Impartial.
US politicians would commit career suicide if they suggested no drone use, because it would mean soldiers get shot.
If the option you want picked is neither drones or boots, how do you suggest the USA divest themselves from wars in foreign countries? If the first black president came out as a pacifist they would have to level every single grassy knoll in the country.
Putin already kills indiscriminately, that’s not really relevant.
I have. Numerous times. Is this the “US citizens must be taken for a trial even when waging war against the US” or “Collateral damage is assassination” argument?
The USA should stopp mass murdering village elders, farmers and so on, because they had been at the same location as someone else. The USA killed ten thousands without a single proof of them being guilty of anything. The USA also killed the families (including small children) of many of these innocent people.
Okay, but - hypothetically - lets assume we have a large base of supporters who take indescribable glee in watching police crack the skulls of college students and pink-hatted feminists. Lets assume we have governors and mayors who surround themselves with paramilitary groups, while threatening to lock up anyone who voices dissent. And all these politicians win in landslide elections in their home states, because the shrinking pool of eligible voters is comprised more and more of these fanatics.
If the president can order a drone strike from across the world, why can’t it be against his political opponents at home.
Oh yeah… The US has sanctioned extrajudicial assassination under Mr. “Yes We Can” Barak Obama. We’re far on the wrong side of that slope.
There was the choice of drone operations being completed on a local level, or to push the authority to authorise them up the chain.
Obama took personal responsibility for this new tool instead of letting the military use it in whatever way.
“Personal responsibility” is a hell of a way to describe giving yourself the power to kill indiscriminately with no oversight or consequences.
Yeah the status quo was some rando jarhead or spook makes that decision, so Obama changed it so his office makes the decision.
That’s not an improvement.
A single point of oversight, divorced from the operation is not better than multiple, who have the incentive to use this tool, despite the constant civilian casualties, because the alternative is the risk of casualties from the boots on the ground they command directly…?
Not an improvement? Do you have any criteria for good/bad here?
Those are some crazy leaps of reasoning. The president isn’t inherently “divorced” from anything and boots on the ground are not always the sole alternative as there’s also the option of doing neither.
I guess I’m just curious if you think the executives of other countries should also have the power to kill indiscriminately with no consequences or oversight. Would you be applying the same line of reasoning if we were talking about, say, Putin?
He’s not getting shot at lol of course he’s more Impartial.
US politicians would commit career suicide if they suggested no drone use, because it would mean soldiers get shot.
If the option you want picked is neither drones or boots, how do you suggest the USA divest themselves from wars in foreign countries? If the first black president came out as a pacifist they would have to level every single grassy knoll in the country.
Putin already kills indiscriminately, that’s not really relevant.
Assassination is when members of a militant organization we’re in armed conflict with are killed, I guess.
Any “military aged male” killed by a drone strike is counted as an “enemy combatant,” even when there’s not a shred of evidence.
Yeah, you should read a little more about this.
I have. Numerous times. Is this the “US citizens must be taken for a trial even when waging war against the US” or “Collateral damage is assassination” argument?
The USA should stopp mass murdering village elders, farmers and so on, because they had been at the same location as someone else. The USA killed ten thousands without a single proof of them being guilty of anything. The USA also killed the families (including small children) of many of these innocent people.
Ah, the second option. So it has nothing to do with assassination at all, and that word is just being used for shock value. Great. Good talk.
Optics.
Okay, but - hypothetically - lets assume we have a large base of supporters who take indescribable glee in watching police crack the skulls of college students and pink-hatted feminists. Lets assume we have governors and mayors who surround themselves with paramilitary groups, while threatening to lock up anyone who voices dissent. And all these politicians win in landslide elections in their home states, because the shrinking pool of eligible voters is comprised more and more of these fanatics.
What then?
We become Bestest Korea