It was something about "terrorist" being the term the bigger army ascribes to the lesser army. I don't think that was being argued, just quoted.
Printable View
It was something about "terrorist" being the term the bigger army ascribes to the lesser army. I don't think that was being argued, just quoted.
The drone program does not need to be dismantled, just scaled way, way back and only used in clear cases of defense, with a bit more transparency, at least after the fact. That would at least be a start.
Would anyone like a free twelve-week digital subscription to the New York Times? It's for unlimited access via Web and smartphone apps. I have one to give away, first post or PM gets it.
While I was getting ready to post this, someone in my office told a coworker to "get with the times." So there you go.
EDIT: Subscription claimed.
This is not going to happen. It will be expanded, and eventually cops will use drones to find weed plants and nobody will think twice about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
What funds are police departments going to use to buy drones? Maybe you mean the FBI, but I can't see anyone else using them domestically.
They'll find a way. Where do you think all these police departments get this military-grade gear now? From the military.
The feds will dump half the drones on local law enforcement once nanotechnological warfare is perfected?
Radicals think they're killing the bad guys too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Yes but they are mentally ill. A sane person does not rationalize killing people on the basis of viewing them as ideological enemies. A rational person can reasonably see the difference between:Quote:
Originally Posted by Finch
- Targeting a person presumed to be guilty of crimes like murder/mass-murder, conspiracy to commit murder/mass-murder, and others, with or without the presence of unintended civilian casualties. (I oppose the drone strikes as a result of that potential, regardless whether that's the outcome, by the way.)
- Targeting one or multiple people who may or may not be bad people, but are presumed to be deserving of harm for whatever reason: even in retribution for the unintended civilian casualties referred to above.
I get that radicals think the perceived slight is enough of a justification to cause terror/fear/harm/death but it simply isn't.
And they will argue that you didn't have that right to privacy because you didn't build a 3 foot thick concrete wall around and above it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan