Drone strikes, legal, ethical and wise - Page 6 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18174 posts

re: Drone strikes, legal, ethical and wise


quote:

I just want to get some clarity on the situation....


No, you just want to make a feeble attempt to compare two completely different situations.

But I'll go ahead and clear it up for you...

quote:

water boarding is inhumane and illegal........murder/assassination of American citizens without due process=legal.


Yes. The person being water boarded is, presumably, in custody and not in a position to carry out any operations against the U.S. and therefore poses no threat. It would also be wrong to kill this person.

The person being taken out with a drone is in the field, capable of carrying out and actually carrying out operations against the U.S., and therefore poses a serious threat. It would also be OK to waterboard this person with a drone to neutralize the threat if we could do so.



This post was edited on 2/6 at 10:27 am


Back to top
dante
LSU Fan
Kingwood, TX
Member since Mar 2006
6616 posts

re: Drone strikes, legal, ethical and wise


So the non-citizen held in captivity is protected under the constitution, but the American citizen killed without due process is not.

This is the same administration that wanted to try Gitmo detainees in federal court instead of military tribunals, yet they will not give an American citizen his day in court. What am I missing?






Back to top
C
LSU Fan
The Woodlands, TX
Member since Dec 2007
20371 posts

re: Drone strikes, legal, ethical and wise


quote:

therefore poses a serious threat


If that's true, why not hold a trail in absentia for treason?






Back to top
Papercutninja
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2010
656 posts

re: Drone strikes, legal, ethical and wise


I think what is the most striking difference is that water boarding was done on non-citizen enemy detainees. I haven't heard of any Americans being water boarded for information.

My view on those comparing the current administrations position to the Patriot Act's erosion of rights has to do with threat level. What we were dealing with in the wake of 9/11 was an information vaccuum. Thanks to a decade of cuts by the Clinton administration we were the intelligence equivalent of Luxembourg, paying too much attention to crumbling Soviet states and treating terrorist attacks on US interests abroad as "police matters." The threat level was so high at that point that some extraordinary measures were necessary in order to gain intelligence and protect the country. However, their should have been a walk back feature in the Act that stated that once an adequate intelligence community could be reestablished, the Act's provisions would end.

The difference between drone strikes now and the Patriot Act provisions then, is that the current administration will NEVER get its hands dirty to do what is necessary. Hence, drone strikes on targets in Yemen and Pakistan while Iran comes closer to its nuclear ambitions.

We are treading on shakey ground.






Back to top



Back to top