The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Particularly with the recent inadvertent killing of two hostages, there is an uptick in news stories about drones.  I don't understand this fascination with drone strikes... particularly from the left.  (I understand it from some of the if Obama is for it, I am against it outlets on the right, but I tuned them out long ago.)

Why does it matter if we kill people with a remote-piloted UAV versus a high-altitude bomb, a cruise missile, or sending in a team of soldiers to shoot them in the face?  What difference does it make?

And on a related topic, why the uproar about "killing American citizens" with drone strikes?  Provided that they aren't in the U.S. (<--- this part is important), why does it matter if they are American citizens or not?  The Constitution does not state that only American citizens are entitled to due process of law, and non-citizens that break the law while in this country receive the same Constitutional protections as citizens.  So if we are going to apply the Constitution outside of the bounds of the U.S., why only to American citizens?

Both of these lines of argument seem rather silly.  The idea that we care about killing people with remote-piloted weaponry but only if it's a plane and not a cruise missile, or that we care about killing people abroad without a trial and conviction but only if they are American citizens is absurd to me.

I agree with you Spider. Its always been one those things that seemed to be people complaining just to complain to me. If they are against the bombing ... I get that. I don't agree with it but I do understand where they are coming from. If they are ok with that but are bothered because we did it by remote control ... well that doesn't even make sense to me.

It's because Drone strikes are more prevalent than bombing recently. I am against both and against foreigners being droned just as much as Americans.

We are using lethal force against American citizens who have not been found guilty of a crime, nor have clearly been shown to be an imminent threat to the U.S..
Due process applies even if the citizens are overseas, which is why we have extraditions treaties and laws. That is why there has been an outcry over the use of drones against U.S. citizens without a trial.

Again:

1) Why does it matter if they are American citizens?  There is no part of the Constitution that says that citizens abroad have a right to due process before military action, but non-citizens do not.
2) Why does it matter if the lethal force is from a drone, or from a bunker-busting bomb or strike team?

Honestly, point #1 has nothing to do with drones at all; it is either illegal to kill "military targets" abroad or it is not, and their citizenship has nothing to do with that fact.  And as to point #2, a drone is no more and no less legal (or ethical) than the strike team we sent in to kill Bin Laden (who, it bears mentioning, also never stood trial).

Without more info (as I don't watch the news for the most part) I can't say why there is an uptick in news stories. The only thing that springs to mind is the killing of American and Italian hostages by mistake with a drone strike, so Obama was/is being raked through the coals on that. Otherwise, I have no clue. They're highly effective and disruptive to whoever they go against. I'm for them, keeps Americans out of the way of gun fire.

I'll take the contrarian side of this issue and say that we should be using drones far more liberally. The riots in Baltimore? Drone strike. Congress in session? Drone strike. Adam Sandler movie premier? drone strike.

I support this. Add presidential debates to the list.

^^^ Multiple drone strikes, and dust off the nuclear warheads. ;)

*firmly presses LIKE button*