Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Dec 12th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: What is your basis for claiming that anybody was killed indiscriminately? Just bec...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

What is your basis for claiming that anybody was killed indiscriminately?

Just because they were interested in one person does not mean that it is magically possible to get to him and only him. Look at bin Lauden. It took a decade to do, he had FAR less physical security than Noriega, and he wasn't the only one killed the raid.

--hide--

The use of a limited force to kill or capture Bin Laden and those leading responsible for 9/11 was what Ron Paul recommended on the basis of the Congressional Authority to remit letters of Marque and Reprisal.

So, in effect, there is a "kill list" authority for infamous people like terrorist & pirates. The Founding Father, however, put it and the war declaration authority in the hands of Congress.

Dec 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: The use of a limited force to kill or capture Bin Laden and those leading responsible f...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

The use of a limited force to kill or capture Bin Laden and those leading responsible for 9/11 was what Ron Paul recommended on the basis of the Congressional Authority to remit letters of Marque and Reprisal.

So, in effect, there is a "kill list" authority for infamous people like terrorist & pirates. The Founding Father, however, put it and the war declaration authority in the hands of Congress.

--hide--

From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org

Dec 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Gerald-283546 said: I'm glad you brought this up. I remember watching one of the many WWII movies I love...
(Quote) Gerald-283546 said:



I'm glad you brought this up. I remember watching one of the many WWII movies I loved with my Dad when I was a boy. The killing of Admiral Yamamoto came up, and my Dad expressed how he thought that was really wrong the way it was done...specifically targeting him like that and shooting him down while he was essentially defenseless. And late in the war too, when the outcome was clear. Now you need to understand that my Dad was stationed at Pearl Harbor during the sneak attack, served in USS Enterprise, among other stations and ships, and had no love for the Japaenese at any level. Yet, he saw how wrong it was to assasinate a great Admiral like that. Many American sailors admired Yamamoto. But it was the way it was done...using intelligence to determine he would be out visiting his troops, then sneaking up and pouncing on his relatively defenseless aircraft. A cheap shot. Done by the Army of course...I doubt the Navy would have done such a mission. It just wouldn't have occurred to sailors to do that. Sink his ship, sure, but assasinate him in a transport aircraft, no.

--hide--

Actually, I'm pretty sure Yamamoto was in an armed bomber, not a transport plane, and in any case he had a fighter escort. So he wasn't defenseless. But that's not really the point. Let's say for the sake of argument that he was. Why would it matter?

There is nothing on a modern battlefield that is not completely defenseless at various times. An infantryman is completely helpless against an artillery piece firing on him from 10 miles away which is completely helpless against an attack helicopter which is completely helpless against a jet fighter. Of course if the infantry gets within a couple hundred yards of the artillery, it is the artillery that is helpless. Or the aircraft will be helpless against anything when they are on the ground, etc.

I don't think being at a disadvantage on the battlefield, other than being hors de combat, really says much about if a target should be engaged or not.

Dec 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: The use of a limited force to kill or capture Bin Laden and those leading responsible f...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

The use of a limited force to kill or capture Bin Laden and those leading responsible for 9/11 was what Ron Paul recommended on the basis of the Congressional Authority to remit letters of Marque and Reprisal.

So, in effect, there is a "kill list" authority for infamous people like terrorist & pirates. The Founding Father, however, put it and the war declaration authority in the hands of Congress.

--hide--

And since Congress has specifically authorized the hunting down of those involved in 9/11 it would seem that all is in order.

Dec 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Gerald-283546 said: (Quote) Marianne-100218 said: I read this article about two men who are p...
(Quote) Gerald-283546 said:

Quote:
Marianne-100218 said:

I read this article about two men who are political activists, building small wooden replicas of drones.

When I read this, I thought to myself, Drones are the new warfare. They are Americas response
to using 747's to blow up National Landmarks. They are the military's response to unconventional
weapons, since we are not fighting armies anymore, but individual terrorists.

Of course, there are always unintended consequences, like collateral damage. In conventional
warfare though, the damages are much greater.

There always are detractors. What do others think of drones?














www.lohud.com



This is a complicated question, but I think the short answer is, "No, they are not ethical."

Drones fighting drones would be OK in my book.
But, unmanned drones piloted by technicians safe from harm far away, and used to kill human beings, is an immoral use of force. The old idea of battle, man to man, hand to hand, which involved bravery, risk, sacrifice, was bad enough but had a sort of honor in it, brought on by necessity. God is described as the God of Hosts, and of course Host is a euphemism for Great Armies, so armies and war are certainly part of our religious tradition.

But, in the modern era, the warrior has been taken farther and farther back from the death and destruction he wreaks. First with the bow and arrow, then the gun, then cannon. Then with aircraft that fly high above the fray. Then we developed nuclear missiles that kill thousands from a continent away. Now we have drones that seek out and premeditatively kill whomever we want in foreign lands. Soon, they will be used at home to kill our own citizens.

Look at the tend. I do not believe it is ethical at all.

--hide--


Hi Gerald et alia,

Unless someone comes up with a compelling reason to the contrary, I am going with your idea and Charles's.

Jim ☺

Dec 12th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: (Quote) Peter-449116 said: You're right John, the weapons themselves ar...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Quote:
Peter-449116 said:

You're right John, the weapons themselves are not unethical. The detachment of the dude sitting at his computer controlling a drone on the other side of the world just makes killing less personal, and therefore easier. No guts required. I am in no way opposed to the necessary use of force, but this technology makes abuse of that force easier, with little or no oversight. The question also arises- why the redundancy? Why does the CIA and the military both conduct drone strikes? The CIA needs to stick to intelligence, using drones strictly for reconnaissance and leave bombing to the Pentagon.


Intelligence work includes "wet" operations. So the CIA's job is not just collecting intelligence.

Drones are no more or no less subject to abuse than any other form. And there is a lot of oversight within both the military and the CIA.

--hide--


Hi Paul et alia,

I'd think we'd all should exercise extreme caution and considerable skepticism when it comes to "oversight" with respect to the CIA.

James ☺

Dec 13th 2012 new
(Quote) John-336509 said: So I guess the Allies in WWII must have been morally wrong. After all, they wen...
(Quote) John-336509 said:





So I guess the Allies in WWII must have been morally wrong. After all, they went on the offense against the poor, nice, friendly Germans and Japonese.



Context, Charles, context.

--hide--


What does this have to do with the fact that Just War teaching does not accomodate pre-emptive war? WWII was already underway when the U.S. got involved.
Dec 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: What does this have to do with the fact that Just War teaching does not accomodate pre-emptive...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

What does this have to do with the fact that Just War teaching does not accomodate pre-emptive war? WWII was already underway when the U.S. got involved.
--hide--

The fact that WWII or any other war was underway when the U.S. or any other country got involved is irrelevant to whether or not it was just.

Just war teaching accommodates any war, pre-emptive or not, that meets the 4 conditions laid down, none of which speaks to the country acting in defense acting in a pre-emptive or reactive fashion. Granted, meeting the requirement that the damage from the aggressor being lasting, grave, and certain is unquestionably harder to meet in a pre-emptive scenario, but not impossible.

Dec 13th 2012 new

I've heard all these arguments since 2001. And I got tired of reading the same thing over and over and over... Killing is killing. Terrorists are terrorists Armies are armies, and drones are drones. How do any of us know how it feels like to send a drone out and know there will likely be collateral damage? Hand to hand combat? How do we know unless we've done both. For me, I THINK, but don't know, that hand to hand would be easier since there's no time to think and I'd want to live. For those in power, I see no difference. They're both awful choices. Why would it be easier to kill innocents on either side? Unless there's an assumption that we care for Amerticans more. But look at a 6-year old child. I know people that make choices like that are out there. But it's not our nature unless you think there is no God.


Regard it how you will, but do you think the analyst behind the computer hasn't thought of this? Those of us who are judgemental and that haven't been through it are arrogant at the very least. Who, of us, has been in that position? Do we know how the person in position of power thinks? Horrible choices but they have to be made.

Dec 13th 2012 new

Same category as assassins. They loiter above as their counterparts conceal, below.

Posts 41 - 50 of 98