6 ms·

We kill less than 100 people per year via execution. Not so bad compared to drone strikes: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drone

• jokoon 10y ago
  Although I agree killing people is wrong, drones strikes are not killing american citizens, it is in the context of an armed, foreign conflict.
  • dforrestwilson1 10y ago
    American lives are worth more then? Who are we fighting exactly?
    • marksweston 10y ago
      To the American government, yes of course they are. The American government isn't supposed to be some even-handed dispenser of global justice; its job is to protect American citizens and their interests.
      • dforrestwilson1 10y ago
        I have trouble squaring this with the DNC narrative that we are stronger together and that immigration is good. How can they claim to be the party of humanism and also advocate for more drone strikes and overseas conflict?
      • jiiam 10y ago
        > its job is to protect American citizens and their interests Are you implying that you can dispense with human rights when it comes to foreign civilians? I am also very frightened by the fact that you are, apparently, condoning it to "protect [American citizens] interests". I hope that interests means safety here.
    • sixstringtheory 10y ago
      By your earlier comment, it sounds like you know more about this situation than the avg HN user. Please dispense with the Socratic method, it's not great for async forums. Can you answer these questions for us? Do we strike targets without high enough precision, or wrongfully? Who exactly are we fighting? Can you link us to some sources we might not have already seen? Yes, there have been lives snuffed out with drones, and yes, there might have been collateral damage. I think it's safe to assume in most cases it's a "them or us" situation. "War is hell." - Sherman, and yes it's an ironic quote because like the earlier context it contains, I've never experienced war.
      • robin_reala 10y ago
        I think what annoys me the most about the phrase ‘collateral damage’ is it sounds like someone bumped into another car more than it sounds like an innocent person was murdered.
        • Fargren 10y ago
          We should replace it with 'collateral murder', maybe.
          • gwright 10y ago
            Sure, if you just want to confuse the discussion. Murder is a criminal concept. This is an armed conflict and it has its own set of rules and ethical/moral frameworks. That doesn't mean that 'anything goes' or that there aren't arguments to be made to minimize civilian casualties or just plain strategic arguments against the practices, it just means that it isn't helpful to try to frame the discussion as if we are talking criminal actions.
            • robin_reala 10y ago
              Fair enough, it’s an armed conflict. That means the Geneva Conventions come into play and “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” are prohibited to civilians and enemy combatants who have laid down their arms. Guess we’d better get The Hague involved for the drone pilots then?
  • cyberferret 10y ago
    Without a formal declaration of war, drone strikes are pretty much just summary executions of human beings without recourse to a fair trial. ...and I take it by your comment that it is perfectly fine if another country sends drones into the US to take out 'suspected operatives'?
    • finid 10y ago
      It's going to be very tough for you or anybody else to convince most Americans that drone strikes are a bad idea. They've been so brainwashed by the govt that they know no better.
    • gwright 10y ago
      Talking about a 'fair trial' only makes sense when dealing with issues in the realm of criminal law. But drone strikes and other military actions are distinctly outside the realm of criminal law. It is a category error to try to apply the concepts of a 'fair trial' to these situations. There are entirely different set of rules and agreements that are associated with armed conflict. Even the moral/ethical arguments are entirely different within the context of armed conflict vs criminal law. One of the reasons our public discussion on these issues is so muddled is that these two contexts are often confused. As an example, many critics of the US policy regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay will argue that we have failed to give them a 'fair trial'. But that is attempting to insert criminal law concepts into an armed conflict. It isn't necessary to prove that a crime has been committed in order to detain people in an armed conflict. Different rules apply. I'm not suggesting that there aren't arguments to be made against the detainee program, but those arguments need to be made in the scope of the legal framework accorded armed conflict not in the scope of the legal framework for criminal activities.
      • cyberferret 10y ago
        I mentioned 'fair trial' in the context of 'justice'. I cannot point to a stranger in the street and say "That man is a murderer" and have an official immediately go over and dispatch him with extreme prejudice. If we say that 'point and kill' executions are OK outside the realm of formal war, then pretty much _everyone_ in the world is living with a sword of Damocles over their heads.
  • jiiam 10y ago
    Are you implying that foreign civilian lives are not worth of the same consideration given to american citizens? Because drone strikes often have civilian casualties, and civilians in the interested zones live in fear of being killed by american strikes, to the point that they see the strikes a more likely cause of death that the nearby armed conflict.
  • zelos 10y ago
    At least two according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing#United_S...
• 3pt14159 10y ago
  I'm pretty peaceful, but surgical, targeted drone strikes against combatants that are currently a threat against civilians isn't exactly going to keep me up at night. Edit: Yikes, the downvote brigade is swift. Here is what I'm saying: Compared to traditional war. Where we lose tens of thousands of people or more on both sides, targeted drone strikes are a net positive. I'm not for perpetual war in the middle east, but realistically speaking we can't just pull out everywhere and targeted drone strikes are better than conventional responses.
  • dforrestwilson1 10y ago
    What civilians are they a threat against exactly?
    • themartorana 10y ago
      At least 160 children through 2011. It's been a lot more time since then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_US_drone_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_US_dr...
  • cyberferret 10y ago
    Does that mean you are 100% confident that these drone strikes are ONLY killing bad guys that deserve it? How many collateral deaths of innocent men, women and children do you consider OK before it begins to infringe on your peaceful sleep?
    • marcoperaza 10y ago
      The Taliban keep women and children at their militant camps. We cannot stop fighting a war, cannot cripple our effectiveness, simply because the enemy has decided to put the innocent in harms way. The US military goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, but at some point you must do what must be done.
      • megalodon 10y ago
• vanderZwan 10y ago
  > Perhaps I am biased because I helped to do a lot of them. If that means what I think it means I'm sure you have some more valuable insights to share on the topic, biased or not.
  • uncletammy 10y ago
    I helped too by paying my taxes. I'm responsible for the death and destruction caused by my country and it makes me sick to my stomach.
• coldtea 10y ago
  >We kill less than 100 people per year via execution. And that's OK because? Not to mention the absolute horror that is Death Row, even without execution. Not to mention that having 5 times more prisoners per capita than any other country (or 99% of other countries) is already a bad thing. Or the horrific prison conditions for a developed western country, including private prisons and forced labour. Or the absolutely astounding (compared to any developed Western country) numbers of police shootings...
  • dforrestwilson1 10y ago
    I'm not saying it is. Just putting it into context. If we want to save the most lives, perhaps we should focus on the political choices which are killing the most.
    • piva00 10y ago
      This is not only about saving lives, it's the ethical point of it. Drone strikes are horrible, death penalty is horrible, both can be talked about. I can't understand why American society has this need for narrow-focus in ONE specific issue at a time, is there a reason for this cultural approach?
      • coldtea 10y ago
        So it can ignore everything else while business goes on as usual...
      • VLM 10y ago
        The corporate controlled media likes divide and conqueror as a propaganda technique, you'll see people copying it a lot. Why do international megacorporations like it so much? Probably some tangential hangover of union busting.
      • okwhatthe2 10y ago
        It is the erroneous belief that every topic, including those concerning human life, can be a relativism.
• amelius 10y ago
  How would you compare sitting in death row for any amount of time, with a drone strike, which is instant?
  • haimez 10y ago
    Not necessarily instant.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • cyberferret 10y ago
    Presumably if you are sitting in death row, you have already been through a trial before judge and jury and had a lawyer appointed to represent you and ensure you had a (reasonably) fair trial and got to state your facts. Drone strikes just come out of nowhere and with no warning when you are having a nap or sitting down to a cup of tea or attending your cousins wedding because someone with a dossier on the other side of the world decided you had to be killed without any of the above recourses to argue your case.
    • kiba 10y ago
      Going through the trial itself could be a traumatic experience. You have to face a prosecutor who wants to kill you and a jury that you must beg for your life to. Then you also have the process of appeals which slowly torture you with uncertainty until you are finally executed. In the end, somebody die of course.
      • cyberferret 10y ago
        Yes, but plenty of people on death row have been given a reprieve, or had their sentences changed to life imprisonment, or obtained full pardons if found innocent. Pretty sure no one has fully recovered from a Hellfire missile through their kitchen or car window when someone checks the dossier later and goes "Oops, that was the target's brother, who happened to have his wife and kids with him at the time..."
• icc97 10y ago
  Stopping killing by execution is 100% solvable, and most other countries have done so. [1] Stopping going to war is much harder and there are only a few countries that have done so. [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_country