[Vision2020] [Spam 3.00] drones

[lfalen]

Paul
All good points

Roger




>-----Original Message-----
>Subject: [Spam 3.00] [Vision2020] drones
>From: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>To: "Vision 2020" <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Date: 02/10/13 22:46:12
>
>Now that we seem to be done chortling over local people protesting 
>something peacefully, I thought maybe we could talk about the whole 
>drone program.
>
>First of all, I can't get past the lack of due process.  There are no 
>trials, not even the kind of for-show trials you'd expect to see in 
>third-world tinpot dictatorships.  We are not at war with any of the 
>countries in which we have been killing these people in.  There are no 
>attempts I've seen to work with Yemen and Pakistan to bring these people 
>in for trial.  According to a Stanford law professor I was listening to 
>on NPR a little while ago, our President signs off on all the drone 
>strikes of specific individuals, which account for about 2% of the drone 
>strikes that happen.  The other 98% are people that they can't identify 
>that appear to be terrorists doing whatever it is that terrorists do.  
>There are whole communities in NW Pakistan that have drones flying 
>overhead and nobody knows what sorts of behavior their remote pilots are 
>looking for in order to strike, causing them to keep their kids at home 
>and has led to PTSD amongst their populace.  We are in effect 
>terrorizing those communities ourselves.
>
>This whole program is just simply wrong on so many levels I can't even 
>believe we as a country would entertain such an idea.  Oh, yeah, this 
>"oversight" came about only because they thought that Romney was about 
>to become President.  Talk about looking ahead.
>
>As for drone technology itself, I'd rather see the use of drones for 
>precision strikes rather than having to put boots on the ground, but 
>only in times where we can actually legally put boots on the ground and 
>give our troops that kind of assignment.
>
>I think we're running into what I think of as the taser problem. Tasers 
>were supposed to be a non-lethal weapon that would be used when all 
>other choices were exhausted.  Instead of replacing the need for a cop 
>to shoot someone, they replaced the need for a cop to whack someone on 
>the head with their night stick.  This is the same thing.  They are so 
>easy, no one we apparently think of as human dies, and the drone 
>operators can turn their consoles off at the end of their shift and go 
>have a nice dinner at the Olive Garden.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Paul
>
>=======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================