Community Question: Use of drones over US skies.

So something that has been in the news a few times and has made people skeptical is the use of UAVs over US skies. So I want to know what the community thinks of this, even those of you not in the US.
I am opposed to the use of drone in the US. Not only does it violate American's right to privacy, but with Eric Holder's recent statement in a letter to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul it would have the large possibility to violate their right of due process as drone strikes on Americans on US soil would be legal.
So that's my take on this issue now let's hear yours.
mq1 predator uav

You might be interested

Comments

Reply Attach
  • 2

    I'm not American, but I wouldn't be too happy. But then again your government uses them to target insurgent buildings *cough* schools *cough* in Pakistan, so I'm not too surprised they use them at home too.

    And that's why we don't want them to be used here, we've seen the destructive power that the drones have and the fact that they can "legally" conduct strikes on US citizens isn't by any means comforting.
    - triclebickle March 6, 2013, 9:42 pm
    I don't see why that was downvoted. You may not be proud of it, but it did happen. Anyway, yes, that is a worry too...
    - SkinnyBill March 7, 2013, 2:33 pm
    Are drones that much worse than armies? (Not that I think drones should strike indiscriminately.)

    However, incredibly valid point. If North Korea or Iran had drones and started hitting western countries, it wouldn't slide.
    - CrazyJay March 7, 2013, 5:02 pm
    In a way I think they are worse than armies, mainly due to the fact that they're so emotionally disconnected, all it takes is one guy leading it into a target zone with no personal attachments involved. Dangerous stuff.
    - poopiteepoop March 7, 2013, 7:08 pm
    I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Better to risk a robot than a human right? It's not that far a step above piloting a bomber for an airstrike. Though when it comes to personal attachment, I think the bigger problem isn't the one controlling that so much as the American population. (Using drones lets Americans feel detached from the war, especially if they don't have family/friends involved.)
    - CrazyJay March 7, 2013, 7:25 pm
    Reply
  • 2

    When the government turns against us we are fucked

    - yogithebear March 7, 2013, 1:55 pm
    Reply
  • 2

    What is the reasoning for it? I would probably find it acceptable if it was for "homeland security" if that's what you call it there (eg to spot people illegally entering, or to spot terrorist activity), but if it's just general "Big Brother is watching you", then it's definitely wrong.

    I know it's a different argument alltogether, but I feel sorry for you Americans. It seems your country is heading for:
    1) Total Surveillance
    2) Greedy companies ruling

    It seems your government wants to watch every last thing you do, and that companies simply want to monopolise the whole country in order to make as much money from you as they can, while not really providing what you want. Example: as I understand, most of you can't get any kind of unmetered internet (eg, there's a download cap). Here in the UK, if you were to sell capped internet, you will be laughed at. The three big companies cover almost the whole country, and all offer unmetered usage for about £20-25/month. You simply would not survive as a company if you did that here.

    Reply
  • 1

    i dislike it, i also consider it a massive breach of privacy(if i'm doing the neighbors dog in the alley behind my house, they have no right to spy on me). i think this is another example of the government and some certain politicians trying to see how far they can push the american public. if they can use drone attacks on their citizens, it becomes murder and genocide. i'm just waiting for obama to sign an executive order making him king and the constitution null & void. i wouldn't put it past him

    I think if you're fucking the neighbors dog, gov't spying is the least of your problems.
    - CrazyJay March 7, 2013, 6:12 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    For the first part fuck them If I see a drone I'll flip it off while smoking a blunt and holding another person hostage (Joke). And for the second part If they strike us we will strike back (Serious).

    • Kodi93
    • March 6, 2013, 8:17 pm
    Unfortunately, citizens 'striking back' would be pretty easily squashed by the US military.
    - Ertrov March 6, 2013, 10:22 pm
    Sadly that is true But as our forefathers died fighting for their freedom so shall we. that's just how I feel and I hope and doubt it would ever have to come to that.
    - Kodi93 March 6, 2013, 10:41 pm
    You really think the U.S. Military can compete 180,000,000 to 4,000,000? Alright, here's the thing about control. You would need something to control. Why would whoever was taking power, want to kill us all? They wouldn't. So mass casualties isn't their agenda. Their tactic would be disarm and control. (Very hypothetical but) The squad of (let's say Marines) breaking into your house to disarm you and arrest you, isn't being ordered to kill you. They're not going to be bringing tanks and fighter jets to arrest you. It'd be person to person combat. And mind you, the military is comprised of U.S citizens. I don't see them coming to aim their rifles at their own families anytime soon. Some would, but alot wouldn't. Cuts down fighting force. As for equipment, I myself own a plate carrier, AR-15, and have been trained with active service men. There's many others with those same resources. There's alot of factors that come into play with this scenario. It's not "they have the most guns, so we lose."
    - xRAYZ0Rx March 7, 2013, 2:55 am
    Amen to that! There's nothing we can't do if we all stand up together!
    - Kodi93 March 7, 2013, 3:11 am
    also, this would be considered a threat to the united states and the operators would be considered criminals and therefore enemies. that comes before the president in the oath of allegiance we swear when we join. i think most soldiers would defect to protect than remain and oppress.
    - MIKYTEY March 7, 2013, 9:40 am
    Not necessarily the U.S Govt. took a survey of the United states Army with a question... Would you shoot a U.S. citizen if told by a Commanding officer.... From what i have heard is that they threw away the survey in disgust and walked out. So if anything the U.S Army would be split between the sociopaths that are now trained and the people who swore to protect the people of the U.S.
    - zeonfighter March 7, 2013, 1:51 pm
    That's not entirely true, there are a few reasons for this. One being that our military takes its oath far more seriously than our politicians do and they aren't so daft as to believe that the American people are so passive that they wouldn't be met by stiff resistance if they tried to conduct occupationary operations much like those conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    - triclebickle March 7, 2013, 6:40 pm
    Far more damage can be done by good marksmen with bolt action rifles capable of long range shots.
    - triclebickle March 7, 2013, 6:46 pm
    That's not a very accurate survey though. It's easy to say hypothetically that you would never fire on a citizen. It's completely different to be ordered to do so in reality by an authority figure. Experiments have shown that humans are very prone to do things even such as torturing other humans if a perceived authority commands it.
    - Ertrov March 8, 2013, 12:27 am
    Reply
  • 1

    I don't like it, but I am unable to form even semi-coherent sentences tonight, so I may elaborate later. Ciao.

    Reply
  • 1

    I'm completely against this, one in terms of privacy. i don't like the idea of them being able to see me anymore than they already do. not that this is going to make a huge difference at this point anyways....
    and secondly when these strikes start happening (and i can almost guarantee they will at some point, it might be a gun man or something along those lines. but the day will come when they are used) i'm willing to bet they'll have to deal with huge protests from the people. they aren't going to be ok with this in the slightest and people are going to be freaking out. all i know for sure is that i'll be keeping an extremely close eye on this and i will be protesting their use. and when it comes down to it i can promise i'll always be fighting for the people, through words and actions. i will not sit idly by and let people die, i will never stand around and allow the gov to attack it's own people.
    my reasoning is this:
    even the most acceptable reasons to use a drone are extremely hazy, and my fear is that this power is going to be much to easy to abuse. you can label just about any person a terrorist and you have instant justification. it's simply too much power over a force that has way to much potential to be abused. but the instant any innocence is killed in one of these strikes is the instant i start fighting back (through protest, information gathering and distribution on the drones usages. i may possibly be using methods i may have to plea the fifth on. but that depends on how hard they push us. i hope they aren't corrupt enough to do so, but hey, maybe the protests will work and we can force this issue to die). the thing is that under our own laws, we are innocent until proven guilty and the line they walk on the use of this power is virtually non existant. a single slip up on their part is all i'll need to join the protests.

    ok enough rambling... this is what i mean if i wasn't clear
    i will strive to be peaceful and always will if it can be helped, but if they push us i'm willing to push back. i hope that it never comes to that, but it won't stop me from doing what right and protecting our freedoms.

    with that being said i'm way to tired to tell if anything i wrote makes sense, so i'm going to bed.

    P.s. i really hope i'm wrong on this but i don't see this ending well at all... we may just be screwed.

    "To secure peace is to prepare for war." Karl Von Clausewitz, if this drone business gets in full force I'd rather be proactive than reactive even if that means destroying the damn things I will not see my fellow countrymen be forced to fear their leaders.
    - triclebickle March 7, 2013, 2:59 am
    i collect guns and other "toys" anyone have an anti-aircraft weapon they're willing to part with?
    - MIKYTEY March 7, 2013, 9:42 am
    trust me i'll be fighting, but i'm going to be doing it my way. keeping my group small and hitting hard, worst comes to worst though i'll give other sharenators who want to fight back a way to contact me directly. coordination and communication are the key to making this work. Yippee ki-yay motherfuckers
    - 24paperwings March 7, 2013, 11:17 am
    Reply
  • 1

    For surveillance of American citizens? Hell no. In all fairness, there is a case to be made for national defense (Drones patrolling the skies in case of an attack) Though I suspect detection of aircraft is a job better suited for radar, hence the lack of need for drone deployment. (Though I doubt anyone would object to ocean patrolling.)

    Another reminder: This isn't a far step up from what's been legal under Bush as well. (Not that I exempt Obama from all the blame. Though I blame the military industrial complex more than either of them.) The PATRIOT act has made privacy violation in the way of wiretapping, hacking emails/phones and other things perfectly legal for the gov't if they suspect you of wrong doing (or if they just get bored.) The US gov't has already passed bills that allow them to assassinate any citizen for whatever/no reason. Now they just get to do both of those things with flying robots. Which is pretty fucked up.

    ^all valid points^ i'm not a huge fan of democide(fancy words, woo) i'm all for drone use, in the OCEAN not over land. they could be put to better use by attacking smuggling ships, pirates, illegal immigrants, etc. not by attacking U.S. citizens. and radar is all that's needed for airborne threats with a rapid response air unit. radar is also cheaper to initiate and maintain than a drone and its operator.
    - MIKYTEY March 7, 2013, 6:34 pm
    And we see that as our fault, we were scared and were told that it was in our best interest so we just signed and mourned those we lost. Now we are making up for our mistake by drawing the line in the sand.
    - triclebickle March 7, 2013, 6:52 pm
    Reply
Related Posts
Loading...