Drones

I guess I just don't feel the government has the right to spy on innocent people, or perform illegal search and seizure, etc., etc. just in the name of security... So I think surveillance DOES matter... people should have an expectation of privacy... according to our constitution anyway.

While I believe in protecting our country, I don't believe that should come at the cost of our individual rights and privacy. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Given that the current president will not call what most people refer to as "terrorists"..."terrorists". And, that foreign terrorist are treated like civilian citizens and extended the luxury of a trial in civilian courts (treated as if they are innocent until proven guilty), I can't see (under these conditions) how use of military force could ever be justified on anyone inside the US that was not an acting member of an enemy uniformed military. This falls in line w Holder's statement, 'But he said the administration rejects the use of military force where law enforcement authorities provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.' In other words, try really, really hard to treat them as citizen civilians, read them their rights, and arrest them...and if they are muslims, remember your tolerance training.

So, by process of elimination, it looks like it is unlikely that terrorist would be among those that a drone would be used to execute a strike against. Using drones to defend against an attacking uniformed military is just employing all available weaponry...i.e., so what? It wouldn't even be necessary to mention the use of drones in the case of a military attack, since we have lots of well armed military aircraft which have always had the "right" to utilize for defending against a domestic attack. So, it would be nice to hear exactly under what conditions they could be "ordered against Americans on U.S. Soil". If he meant a strike that would necessarily result in collateral damage, such as was necessary in france during WWII - I am sure he would have said that and it would be another case of, "goes w/o saying, so why mention it?".

Well, I just think it is b/c you are up to no good. (KIDDING).

I agree w you in part (especially if there is no reason to "spy" on a given individual on an indivdual basis). However, it would be difficult to survey an area for unusual human activity, or what not, w/o a surveillance systems surveying humans. But, this capability can be abused, or misused as you seem to think it is - yet you don't seem to think surgical strike "authorization" for "whenever we say it is necessary" could be or is an abuse? You don't die from surveillance.

W/o the use and data obtained from current surveillance systems, it would be a lot more difficult to determine who is innocent citizen and who is not in a lot of hypthetical situations. And, aircraft of anysort would have less chance of hitting a highly specific target at the "best time" (e.g., when the person sought is most likely at a given target). So, I don't think it is as easy as all that to say one could potentially threaten your liberty, while the other cannot.

Innocent people that associate with a known terrorist or person wanted for crimes they have committed against another country are not innocent bystanders.
Osama Bin Ladens wives and children were, or those of any known terrorist, not only used as a cover but are as guilty as the men they were hiding with.
They knew the risk to themselves and their families and would not think twice before killing as many of our women and children as they could.
War is not for the feint at heart and casualties are inevitable.
I would rather one of their families suffer than any of ours.
We must fight them on their own terms and hit them just as hard as they would hit us.
If they choose to terorize our country by random killings then we need to fight them with their rules.
The State of Israel learned early to fight their eneimies as hard and as ruthless as they would fight Israel. Shalom

I disagree with drones for actual combat, but have no problem with them for surveillance as long as it's not surveying anything it shouldn't - eg hovering over a nudist beach etc. My problem with them in combat is that it makes it too impersonal - without taking away from the job that the forces do to protect our countries, at the end of the day, we are talking about killing people. I don't think anyone should be able to sit and play a computer game that actually kills real people, it is too clinical, and too removed. It is dehumanising something that is so deeply human.

Sometimes we have to sacrifice some of our privacy for the sake of safety and catching the 'bad guys'
I have no concerns when I have to have all my luggage checked and go through the whole airport security process if it keeps some terrorist or other nutter off the plane so why would a drone hovering above my house bother me in any way?

I didn't say it wasn't an abuse; all I said was if they are going to do a strike anyway, I'd prefer not to put people in harm's way.

But there certainly is a fine line to this.... When I go to the airport, I go with the expectation they are going to search me and my luggage. However, if I'm driving down the highway and get stopped and searched for no reason, that's completely different.

I don't think the government should be able to listen in on my phone calls, go through my email, or take video of me in my backyard without "probable cause." The real question: is our national safety worth becoming a "surveillance society" in which our every move could be monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized?

I don't like it either redhorseridge. However if you have given the government any probable cause then the courts need to see the evidence and then decide if a warrant is necessary .
I do not like the Patriot Act in its present form . Times have changed however.
In the 80's we could not grasp the idea that someone would blow up a marine barracks in Beirut.
In the 90's trying to blow up the twin towers failed.
Then in 2001 those same towers were destroyed, the Pentagon, and the other plane all these acts were so far fetched most of us would think it impossible.
There have been a few more attempts but we were ready and we understand that others will go to any lengths to attack us.
Therefore our government needs the ability to also use extreme measure to prevent more attacks. Shalom

I don't think we'll ever fully understand pure evil db....