SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Drones and domestic spying< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 11:56 am  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 12:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   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.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 1:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 09 2012, 9:14 am)
QUOTE
When the choice is drones or boots on the ground I prefer drones.

Think about what General Sherman had said about wars being terrible lest we grow fond of them -- and see how we have been using drones abroad in ways that we would never tolerate if the table were reversed.  And yeah, the perceived lower 'cost' has everything to do with our continued usage.

Are we solving problems?  Yes.  But are we also upping the ante for our enemies, present and future?  Yes, most definitely.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 1:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   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?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 1:26 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 2:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6312
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 2:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   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.

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 3:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   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.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6312
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 4:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 42735
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 5:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"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.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 25450
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 5:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6312
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 5:20 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Dec. 09 2012, 4:09 pm)
QUOTE
"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.

The presumption is that if we're targeting specific individuals there is a much better chance of apprehending known persons crossing multiple borders.

Nevertheless, good intel about a specific threat aimed at US soil would be a circumstance in which a drone strike may be justified and the smart thing to do.

But I suspect few if any of those drone strikes fit that mold.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 6:44 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 7:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6312
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 09 2012, 7:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 4:02 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6312
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2012, 6:28 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

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
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
16 replies since Dec. 09 2012, 11:56 am < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Drones and domestic spying
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions