posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Indigo5
I honestly hate when we disagree. Drones may in fact result in less innocent casualties but the ever broadening authority on their use just isn't
I know you have seen this but for context:
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be
“senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active
plot to attack the U.S.
Yes...I went as far as to track down the actual Memo and read it....see here.
I do agree that it needs to be buttoned down, scrutinized etc. Technology is evolving at light speed...and though Drones might be a very useful tool
to fight "evil" now...The future is comming fast and we need a legal framework and congress, the security council et al involved.
Otherwise I am all good with scrutiny and challenge on the program...it is needed now and to set a precedent for the future.
But I also remember Sept. 11th like it was yesterday and had brothers that volounteered and went to foriegn lands on false claims of WMDs. I watched
the years that followed under the "Bush Docterine" with invasions, bombings and hundreds of thousands of innocent folks killed ...
and in that light I view the "Obama Docterine" leaning heavy on Navy Seals, Special Forces and drones rather than sending 100k American boys over
after near indiscriminately bombing the hell out of innocent populations...I view it as the lesser of evils.
Thats just my honest view. Pres. Bush bombed then invaded Afghanistan...Obama sent the Navy Seals to knock on one mans door. You can argue that the
world should be all love and peace...but...
On Drones? A framework needs to be laid down...laws put in place...and the "memo" appears to be an effort to begin to sort that out before the Pres.
leaves office...in the meanwhile I'm OK with scrutiny of the program, it's needed, but I also strongly prefer it to the former Presidents
edit on 6-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason