USA Politics

It's highly unlikely.

The problem a lot of people have with the drone program is that it is killing American citizens period. Most of those citizens are probably terrorists - but have not been convicted in a court of law. The other problem is that it kills innocent civilians around them.
 
Mosh said:
This makes sense, thanks. So would this be a case of a basic bill being overcomplicated with more (and perhaps unpopular) provisions? I know this is something that happens when local amendments are in the polls. Also, if the president doesn't sign it, is there an opportunity for it to be revised and passed shortly thereafter?
Click to expand...


This is really a problem with most any bills, from Defense to Farm Bills .. tons of stuff gets tacked on ... some controversial, some just unrelated spending that would probably not pass if put up for a vote on it's own. One classic example was the Strategic Helium Reserve. It was created around World War I, which the legitimate purpose of needing Helium for balloons, which were used in WWI and WWII (barrage balloons). By 1950, it was completely useless as technology moved on, but the reserve was funded until the mid 1990s. It kept getting added on as riders to a bill by the Congressman whose district kept the reserve.

IMO one of the better "good government" actions was the the Base Closing Commission in the early 1990s. After the USSR collapsed, it was decided we did not need as many military bases. An independent commission selected the base closings and Congress had the option of voting yes or no to the list as a whole versus letting parochial interests decide what would close. I think something like this could have value now (not only defense, but in other areas of the budget).
 
LooseCannon said:
It's highly unlikely.

The problem a lot of people have with the drone program is that it is killing American citizens period. Most of those citizens are probably terrorists - but have not been convicted in a court of law. The other problem is that it kills innocent civilians around them.
Click to expand...


Quite a bit of the uproar is about police using drones, not to kill people, but to gather information. I am sure there will be court cases about these.
 
I have to admit that I'm very uncomfortable with the drones thing. It already blurs the line between legit law enforcement and sneaky surveillance. Suppose it was used with the best of intentions now, what can prevent future abuse? It's a dangerous technology in itself, and even more dangerous when it falls into the wrong hands.
 
I think the courts will definitely decide what police can and cannot do with drones - I also expect a lot of it will curtail what the police can do, based on many recent SCOTUS decisions.
 
True, but how does that prevent future abuse? Laws can be changed, rulings can be revised, decisions can be revoked. Not to mention that there is no guarantee that the drones won't be used illegally. It simply can't be prevented. Pandora's box is open.
 
That's something you can say about literally every single scientific advance that could be put to nefarious uses by authority. Every single one. What the cops are using the drones to do are things that have already been ruled illegal by the courts. Yes, those rulings could be revised - and they might be. Our biggest protection from those sorts of excesses is that the courts enforce their own decisions by throwing out illegally acquired evidence.
 
I'm not sure how the development of drones could have been prevented to begin with, from a certain point it was a no-brainer. I just don't think it should be considered a legit tool to be used by a democratic government. Like the nuclear bomb, it is a nefarious product coming from scientific advances that were in themselves beneficial. If a democratic government - any, really, but the US have always been the spearhead - employs them, it becomes impossible to argue for other, less civil governments and institutions, not to have them, since the US government has always advertised itself as the highest morale ground there is. To put it simply: Just because you can build them doesn't mean you should use them.
 
Exactly, there are certainly legit purposes for the drones. Off hand, using them instead of helicopters in SWAT operations come to mind... they can gather better information and not tip off the suspect they are onto them, but those types of things would generally have a warrant attached to them. I am also find using them for border enforcement, rescue operations, and things like that. I have a problem, and I think the courts would too, having them patrolling and gathering information on private property without a warrant.
 
Well, I suppose there will be little to stop less-scrupulous governments using them to spy on their citizens. Of course, these are countries that already do spy on their citizens with every piece of technology they can matter.
 
Again, I think there's a valid use for them - but it has to be with warrants.

In 2001, a case came to the Supreme Court about the police using heat detectors to see if people might be growing pot by seeing if a house has a lot of heat (like for lamps). They declared this was a search and the police required a warrant to use thermal imaging devices. I imagine this will be cited a lot when it comes to what drones can and cannot do.

It should be noted that case was decided by Scalia, Thomas, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer in the majority, with Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Kennedy dissenting. An interesting split.
 
Not really, Scalia is an originalist and reads the 4th amendment that way. If the drones essentially replace helicopters with the same restrictions placed on helicopter under the law, I see no issue. As mentioned, they can be effective in things like rescue and SWAT operations moreso than helicopters.

Where they probably have the most value is along the border looking for smugglers and illegals.
 
Mr. Brennan (note the misspelling) probably isn't a Muslim. And even if he is, so what?

This is just an attempt to "other" someone that the people on that website disagree with, much like the attempts to "other" Obama by calling him a Muslim. I really, really like what Colin Powell said in that situation:


Secretary Colin Powell said:
"Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top