|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Montecresto 
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 11:56 am |
|
   |
Again, president Carter addresses our problematic foreign policy and the developing surveillance state.
WASHINGTON: Former US President Jimmy Carter has slammed American assassination drone strikes in other countries, saying that killing civilians in such attacks would in fact nurture terrorism.
"I personally think we do more harm than good by having our drones attack some potential terrorists who have not been tried or proven that they are guilty," Carter said in an interview with Russia Today.
"But in the meantime, the drone attacks also kill women and children, sometimes in weddings... so this is the kind of thing we should correct," he added.
Carter, who served as US president from 1976 to 1980, also criticized incumbent American policy makers for violating the country's "long-standing policy" of "preserving the privacy of US citizens."
"We now pass laws that permit eavesdropping on private phone calls and private communication," he noted, explaining that in the past, in order to do that, the government had to obtain a court ruling that proved the nation's national security was at risk, "which was very rare, but now it's done all over America."
"We need to back off [and] restore basic human rights as spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)," the former US president underlined.
He concluded by saying that there are 30 paragraphs in the UDHR, "and at present time, my country, the US, is violating 10 out of the 30." (Monitoring Desk)
http://www.thenews.com.pk/article....attacks
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39578
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 12:14 pm |
|
 |
When the choice is drones or boots on the ground I prefer drones. Having independent critical judicial review of domestic surveillance should be the standard.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39578
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 1:13 pm |
|
|
Our lack of other options in those specific countries more the point. How many drone attacks have been effected against people in Great Britain? France? Germany? Think there might be a reason for that, like a functioning, cooperative, national government?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23917
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 1:26 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 09 2012, 10:13 am)
QUOTE Our lack of other options in those specific countries more the point. How many drone attacks have been effected against people in Great Britain? France? Germany? Think there might be a reason for that, like a functioning, cooperative, national government?
So that justifies our attacks? Warring without really declaring war? Goes back to my point above -- when usage becomes easier / less costly -- we utilize it more. Problems solved? No, we just keep finding more 'needs' -- which also helps to explain why our defense budget remains staggeringly high despite the continued influx of "cheaper solutions"...
At the end, the issue lies not in tools themselves, but in our national ego, our misguided policies and priorities. And unless we change ourselves fundamentally as a nation, our tools just help us pile up more mistakes (and create more enemies and more problems) cheaper and faster. Right back to what Sherman the man said.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39578
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 2:07 pm |
|
|
Self defense isn't some recently made up "need" is it? And unilateral action in the face of a harboring nation's inaction goes back at least to the days of pirates in the modern age of nation states, which in many ways these non-state actors resemble.
You are welcome to wait for the next bomb to be detonated, I simply judge there is another approach. An approach that has to be carefully considered for all its consequences to be sure.
A discussion that is ongoing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012....ted=all
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39578
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 3:41 pm |
|
|
(Drift Woody @ Dec. 09 2012, 11:22 am)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 09 2012, 11:14 am)
QUOTE When the choice is drones or boots on the ground I prefer drones. Having independent critical judicial review of domestic surveillance should be the standard. There's a third option: neither.
True.
Which appears to be Ben's preference. But my presumption is that after consideration an actual threat has been determined to be present in which case action in self defense is valid as I see it anyway.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5302
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 4:58 pm |
|
|
What kind of threat would be stopped by a drone strike in some third world country ... are we talking about preventing an attack on US soil?
If so, I assume it would be a plot for a terrorist attack. I have to question whether our intel is that good, or if we're just going after militants who are primarily a threat within their own country. I suspect it's mostly the latter and we're getting entangled in the internal conflicts of these countries, but if we have intel about a specific attack planned on our soil we should have enough info to stop it by other means.
I know it's difficult to weigh the accuracy of the intel and the likelihood of the attack and I understand the desire to err on the side of taking action, but there are additional factors to consider -- such as the illegaility of extrajudicial targeted killings, the potential for mistakes & collateral damage, and the anti-American hatred this fosters.
President Carter may be right when he says this nurtures terrorism. Are we playing whack-a-mole, and in the process triggering a proliferation of moles?
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39578
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 5:09 pm |
|
|
"we should have enough info to stop it by other means"
Such as?
Presuming we'll be in receipt of a travel schedule would seem to be unrealistic.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Ben2World
Group: Members
Posts: 23917
Joined: Jun. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 5:10 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 09 2012, 12:41 pm)
QUOTE
(Drift Woody @ Dec. 09 2012, 11:22 am)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 09 2012, 11:14 am)
QUOTE When the choice is drones or boots on the ground I prefer drones. Having independent critical judicial review of domestic surveillance should be the standard. There's a third option: neither. True. Which appears to be Ben's preference. But my presumption is that after consideration an actual threat has been determined to be present in which case action in self defense is valid as I see it anyway.
Of course, no one is saying that our decisions makers are sending drones out lightly... but am saying that the lower the cost of intervention (of whatever kind) -- sometimes, the more tendency (or some would say temptation) there is to utilize.
As for "carefully considering all consequences" -- I doubt that was the case with Iraq... or Afghanistan. Unlike the other extreme of "mutually assured destruction" of attacking USSR (cost too high) -- attacking Iraq and Afghanistan -- and nowadays sending drones into Pakistan -- are considered "low risk / low cost". And yet, the cost of creating future enemies? Our government, like our businesses, tend to orient toward the very short term -- barely more than the immediate future.
--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page. -- St. Augustine
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 6:44 pm |
|
|
Ron Paul and Jimmy Carter are about as polar opposite on politics as you might find and yet they both agree on both points Carter made in the op. they both understand that perception is reality and that the people on the other end of US drones see this kind of killing as rather sinister. An enemy they don't see, like a bolt of lightning out of the sky from an angered god, and sudden death to, amongst others, women, children and grandma. Carter and Paul's point being that we are alienating the civilian populations and creating terrorists. It all seems a no brainer for them.
As to surveillance increasing to unacceptable levels, it has and it is. Speaking of Bush's warrantless and illegal wiretapping, Sandra Day O'Conner said we were degenerating into a dictatorship!!! She was a Reagan pick. Conservatives, liberals and libertarians are in agreement on this. It better be curtailed before its too late.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 7:05 pm |
|
|
Also, Carter made these comments to the Pakistani press! That's no small thing, for it would be one thing to have said that to the us press (and he has) but its quite another to criticize US foreign and domestic policies abroad, and particularly a country in which we are raining down drone missles onto.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5302
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 7:09 pm |
|
|
The terrorists don't have the power to take down the United States, but we have the power to do that to ourselves by our own actions.
I think that's what bin Laden had in mind.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 4:02 am |
|
|
Well, when you consider all that president Carter has said on these subjects, it becomes clear that that is his concern. And, you may be hard pressed to find someone of his prominence more concerned about the preservation of human rights. That the US is in violation of one third of the articles of UDHR seems to have gone un-commented on here.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5302
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 6:28 am |
|
|
Not entirely uncommented on here; in my first post I mentioned there are additional factors to consider -- such as the illegaility of extrajudicial targeted killings
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
