Drones are a tool, not a policy. The policy is assassination. While every president since Gerald Ford has upheld an executive order banning assassinations by U.S. personnel, Congress has avoided legislating the issue or even defining the word “assassination.” This has allowed proponents of the drone wars to rebrand assassinations with more palatable characterizations, such as the term du jour, “targeted killings.”
It seems like front loading one with a Peace Prize is equivalent to carte blanche.
Are these drone attacks the 21st century version of the Inquisition?
Another reason that I'll be voting for Jill Stein!
Hillary; we came, we saw, he died Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Sanders, I will continue Obama's drone program.
Then there's the republicans!
And how long before others develop them and use them on us?
Good morning Jonny. I'm not sure the general US public nor any of the other
citizens of the nations listed here in a 2012 Guardian article are as concerned about drones being used for war as we may be here. Since this article is old one might wonder how many more are now available? The drone strikes being used to kill as per the Intercept article are distant in territories often unfamiliar to the general public. However, those currently being flown by hobby drone enthusiast may very well bring down a plane creating a major disaster and laws need to be created about this danger as well. Please don't take my comments nor additional information as approval, the distant drone attacks in this new warfare nightmare may in some cases also save lives.
The Guardian article is here
A lot of US citizens would not even know what you are talking about - people posting here are excluded.
As long as the government via propaganda convinces the people that someone is a monster terrorist the public will be on board to kill the "sucker" and then chant USA, USA, USA.
Suggest Jimmy you take just a few seconds to click on the link of the 2012
Guardian article. Additional information really isn't dangerous.
Jimmy, if all the countries had them as per the Guardian in 2012, ya think they aren't using them?
btw, they are also a major component and have been for years of guarding the US borders and also by the Coast Guard. An additional use is by police forces for years. Having once had a forum friend who was employed by a major corporation building drones, the info from the Intercept isn't new info for me. A little research doesn't hurt. The variety of info isn't new.
Magic, other countries don't have to use them on us. Our own government will do that.
"What the fuck is wrong with us?"
We are exceptional [sic].
Don't you ever listen to our dear leaders?
My takeaway from what the source said is that everyone is on a kill list, It is just a matter of how close to the top you are. Did anyone else get that impression?
They have already been used on American citizens.
Really. I had no idea
Countries have been assassinating people for centuries
When it's targets in our own government is when they really pour on the spin
Just wait until until they finally have a airborne virus that is matched to DNA
Congress passing a law will only put a speed bump in place
Dr. Jill Stein has no chance, but if you vote for her do not buy the BS about " wasting your vote" by not supporting Bernie, because he has absolutely no chance either because US presidents are not elected, they are selected and HRC has been selected.
By supporting Dr. Stein you are not being naive about her becoming POTUS, but are not being a voting sucker and you can vote with a clear conscience. Thanks for supporting her.
Not will do that, but already have done that!
The inquisitors had the stones to torture you in person.
The droners kill you from half a world away.
Droners make the Inquisitors look civilized.
Question 5) Are you willing to have others do unto 'us' as 'we' have done unto them?
Yes, or no
Erm, quite a while at this point.
Nobody wants to go to war with the USA. You'd nuke anyone who would be capable of beating you, and anyone else would just be destroyed.
can_curmugon, most "real" journalists, regardless of publication or nation, typically insist on more than one source and provide them as a factor in the publication. Interestingly, posters have immediately accepted this secret sourced article, quite likely without bothering to read the original article by
Scahill which is apparently scheduled to be the first of a series.