How do we pick targets for drone attacks?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ How do we pick targets for drone attacks?
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:09 AM
the government believes that a lethal drone attack against an American citizen is justified if the targets are a) "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaeda or b) "an associated force."

http://news.yahoo.com/rare-look-obama-decides-send-drones-kill-americans-031832960.html

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf


Whatever an associated force means...
Feb 5, 2013 10:09am
Belly35's avatar

Belly35

Elderly Intellectual

9,716 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:17 AM
2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is for the protection of the citizen against its own government.
Feb 5, 2013 10:17am
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:18 AM
Our government is bullshit.
Feb 5, 2013 10:18am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:21 AM
Belly35;1381964 wrote:2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is for the protection of the citizen against its own government.
lol didn't see this post coming. Honestly, how different would your life be without guns? When was the last time you pulled your gun in self defense? I'm gonna say...never.
Feb 5, 2013 10:21am
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:31 AM
Raw Dawgin' it;1381969 wrote:lol didn't see this post coming. Honestly, how different would your life be without guns? When was the last time you pulled your gun in self defense? I'm gonna say...never.
You act like gun owners WANT to use their guns in self defense. It's just another form of insurance. I've never made a single claim against my car insurance policy, that doesn't mean I won't have to in the future.
Feb 5, 2013 10:31am
GoChiefs's avatar

GoChiefs

Resident Maniac

16,754 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:33 AM
Raw Dawgin' it;1381969 wrote:lol didn't see this post coming. Honestly, how different would your life be without guns? When was the last time you pulled your gun in self defense? I'm gonna say...never.
So nobody has ever used a gun for self defense?
Feb 5, 2013 10:33am
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:35 AM
GoChiefs;1381982 wrote:So nobody has ever used a gun for self defense?
Yeah, but have YOU ever needed to defend yourself? Until YOU need to defend yourself you don't need a gun. So wait until you're attacked and THEN get a gun. Makes sense, right?
Feb 5, 2013 10:35am
GoChiefs's avatar

GoChiefs

Resident Maniac

16,754 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:37 AM
justincredible;1381985 wrote:Yeah, but have YOU ever needed to defend yourself? Until YOU need to defend yourself you don't need a gun. So wait until you're attacked and THEN get a gun. Makes sense, right?
Complete sense. I guess I better sell mine. Any takers?
Feb 5, 2013 10:37am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:38 AM
justincredible;1381979 wrote:You act like gun owners WANT to use their guns in self defense. It's just another form of insurance. I've never made a single claim against my car insurance policy, that doesn't mean I won't have to in the future.
I just think gun owners make a huge deal over gun reform and the 2nd amendment but will never need their gun or have their lives affected by not owning a gun. On the other end of the spectrum, i think banning "assault weapons" is retarded considering there are 300 deaths a year because of rifles. But I think gun owners in general over react to this.
Feb 5, 2013 10:38am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:39 AM
justincredible;1381979 wrote:You act like gun owners WANT to use their guns in self defense. It's just another form of insurance. I've never made a single claim against my car insurance policy, that doesn't mean I won't have to in the future.
GoChiefs;1381982 wrote:So nobody has ever used a gun for self defense?
justincredible;1381985 wrote:Yeah, but have YOU ever needed to defend yourself? Until YOU need to defend yourself you don't need a gun. So wait until you're attacked and THEN get a gun. Makes sense, right?
Do you live in an environment where you need a gun for self protection? If so i'd suggest you move.
Feb 5, 2013 10:39am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:41 AM
To me, there is no middle ground on guns. You have gun owners who stick their fingers in their ears about gun reform and legislators who do the same thing about gun ownership.
Feb 5, 2013 10:41am
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:41 AM
Raw Dawgin' it;1381994 wrote:Do you live in an environment where you need a gun for self protection? If so i'd suggest you move.
Yes, I live therefor I live in an environment where I MAY need a gun for self protection. You act like crime only happens in shitty neighborhoods. What terrible, terrible logic.
Feb 5, 2013 10:41am
GoChiefs's avatar

GoChiefs

Resident Maniac

16,754 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:41 AM
They make a huge deal over it because you never know if or when in your life you may or may not need one. I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Feb 5, 2013 10:41am
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:42 AM
GoChiefs;1381997 wrote:They make a huge deal over it because you never know if or when in your life you may or may not need one. I'd rather be safe than sorry.
That, and it's also the 2nd amendment. I'd say they put it at number 2 because it's pretty fucking important.
Feb 5, 2013 10:42am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:43 AM
Raw Dawgin' it;1381990 wrote:I just think gun owners make a huge deal over gun reform and the 2nd amendment but will never need their gun or have their lives affected by not owning a gun. On the other end of the spectrum, i think banning "assault weapons" is retarded considering there are 300 deaths a year because of rifles. But I think gun owners in general over react to this.
The second amendment isn't based on need.
Feb 5, 2013 10:43am
GoChiefs's avatar

GoChiefs

Resident Maniac

16,754 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:43 AM
justincredible;1382000 wrote:That, and it's also the 2nd amendment. I'd say they put it at number 2 because it's pretty fucking important.
It's not important at all. You've never needed a gun.
Feb 5, 2013 10:43am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:45 AM
Con_Alma;1382001 wrote:The second amendment isn't based on need.
cool.
Feb 5, 2013 10:45am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:46 AM
I think the question is...when is the last time a citizen justifiably used a firearm against a United States' federal government agent pursuant to a Hobbes/Locke prescription for a proper revoluation against the government's monopoly on the use of force and what is the likelihood that they will need to do so in the foreseeable future?

Never (including the Civil War) and Zero.

Obama is not going to be sending drones to attack right wing nuts holding kids in their bunkers in rural Alabama any time soon :laugh:

Private Individual Gun Ownership is Insurance against Coercion from other private individuals. Not against Coercion from the Federal Government. That, is what the National Guard is for.
Feb 5, 2013 10:46am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:47 AM
justincredible;1382000 wrote:That, and it's also the 2nd amendment. I'd say they put it at number 2 because it's pretty fucking important.
So you base one amendment over the other? So society can evolve, but rights that were written hundreds of years ago are sacred and cannot?
Feb 5, 2013 10:47am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:49 AM
BoatShoes;1382005 wrote:I think the question is...when is the last time a citizen justifiably used a firearm against a United States' federal government agent pursuant to a Hobbes/Locke prescription for a proper revoluation against the government's monopoly on the use of force and what is the likelihood that they will need to do so in the foreseeable future?

...
Why do you ask?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

The District of Columbia vs. Heller
Feb 5, 2013 10:49am
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:51 AM
Raw Dawgin' it;1382006 wrote:So you base one amendment over the other? So society can evolve, but rights that were written hundreds of years ago are sacred and cannot?
The Constitution didn't give us these rights. It is to protect those rights from the government.
Feb 5, 2013 10:51am
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:54 AM
And we can change the Constitution if our "evolved" society calls for it. We can amend it.
Feb 5, 2013 10:54am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Feb 5, 2013 10:59 AM
Con_Alma;1382008 wrote:Why do you ask?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

The District of Columbia vs. Heller
LOL I agree...I'm talking about what the justification for that is...The underlying justification for that individual right to bear arms is as protection against private coercion...not as protection against the government.
Feb 5, 2013 10:59am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Feb 5, 2013 11:01 AM
In the reconstruction period those militias fighting against Grant's Army became private Klan members and individual black men needed an individual right to bear arms against this private coercion when they could not rely on the police.

Feb 5, 2013 11:01am
Raw Dawgin' it's avatar

Raw Dawgin' it

Just Ain't Care

11,466 posts
Feb 5, 2013 11:01 AM
justincredible;1382013 wrote:And we can change the Constitution if our "evolved" society calls for it. We can amend it.
My overall point is, gun owners are not willing to accept any amendments and anti gun lobbyists are not willing to compromise with reform.

Edit: I have no problem with amending the 2nd amendment either. It was written by slave owners.
Feb 5, 2013 11:01am