Brennan in trouble

[Tero]

What a wimp! He opposes waterboarding. What's next, no drones?
http://mobile.usnews.com/news/articles/ ... han-hagels

[Tero]

Yes, drones
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/201 ... f-secrecy/

[Tero]

Yes, drones
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/201 ... f-secrecy/

[JimC]

America keeps droning on and on and on...

[Blind groper]

Waterboarding is torture by any reasonable definition, and is an abuse of power. Torture is a problematic way of obtaining information anyway, and should not be part of any operating procedure by any nation that considers itself 'civilised'.

[Jason]

In short: He's opposed to "lethal" drone strikes. He's opposed to waterboarding, though he deferred on the question of torture. He's in favour of continued "paramilitary-style" operations. He's in favour of killing US citizens (obviously denying them a trial). He's in favour of indefinite imprisonment either in Guantanamo, an allied facility, or on prison ships.

[sandinista]

In short: He's opposed to "lethal" drone strikes. He's opposed to waterboarding, though he deferred on the question of torture. He's in favour of continued "paramilitary-style" operations. He's in favour of killing US citizens (obviously denying them a trial). He's in favour of indefinite imprisonment either in Guantanamo, an allied facility, or on prison ships.

so...what else is new? gonna get real interesting when other countries get drones...which they will. US setting a dangerous president, as usual.

[Ian]

Could somebody explain their fascination with drones? Oooh... drones! Scary! I don't understand it at all. The missions are still planned by humans, the drone is still controlled by a human pilot... he's just not inside the plane itself. They're not automated and they can't fire within another nation's borders without approval any more than a manned airstrike which seeks to carry out the same mission. Drone strikes are just another sort of air strike; it's completely irrelevant whether or not somebody is on board!

The matter of air strikes against terrorist targets overseas is an entirely different matter. Arguing whether such tactics are moral or not is fine. But arguing whether the instruments have a pilot in the cockpit or on the ground is meaningless. The day humans are completely removed from the loop and the drones are deciding for themselves where to go and when to attack, then they become their own topic worth discussing.

[JimC]

Could somebody explain their fascination with drones? Oooh... drones! Scary! I don't understand it at all. The missions are still planned by humans, the drone is still controlled by a human pilot... he's just not inside the plane itself. They're not automated and they can't fire within another nation's borders without approval any more than a manned airstrike which seeks to carry out the same mission. Drone strikes are just another sort of air strike; it's completely irrelevant whether or not somebody is on board!

The matter of air strikes against terrorist targets overseas is an entirely different matter. Arguing whether such tactics are moral or not is fine. But arguing whether the instruments have a pilot in the cockpit or on the ground is meaningless. The day humans are completely removed from the loop and the drones are deciding for themselves where to go and when to attack, then they become their own topic worth discussing.

Surely they have made such individual strikes easier, and less likely to involve the loss of an expensive aircraft and trained pilot if something goes wrong. Given that, their existence has made such missions more common than they would have been without the technology, which is pretty significant...

[Ian]

So they're just an improved version of airstrikes. But airstrikes have been around long before the technology was available to make them unmanned. I still don't see where the So What is about whether it's a manned aircraft or an unmanned one.

There are two different issues which people seem to confuse here, 1) the value and morality of airstrikes, and 2) the fact that now it's possible that the pilot is on the ground instead of in the cockpit. They should not be confused. "What's the US gonna do when others get drones... gonna get real interesting..." Jeez, talk about missing the point. What's the US gonna do when other nations get airplanes, hmm?

[Jason]

It has very little to do with the means used to carry out the strikes except in-so-far as the strikes are labelled by them. It's the strikes themselves that are at issue. Carrying out an attack on a target because terrorists are suspected of being there, whether it is confirmed by ground assets or not, and killing x number of innocents is a problem. Carrying out attacks across international borders, such as in Pakistan, with the same results (although this is not central to the point) is a problem.

Drone technology invites a greater callousness with respect to these sorts of missions. Moving in with ground units, possibly with drone support, would be a much more acceptable option. This is not the opinion of your military brass apparently, perhaps because, as Jim alluded to, drones remove soldiers from danger resulting in fewer casualties (which is more of a pragmatical political move than anything else).

[JimC]

So they're just an improved version of airstrikes. But airstrikes have been around long before the technology was available to make them unmanned. I still don't see where the So What is about them.

There are two different issues which people seem to confuse here, 1) the value and morality of airstrikes, and 2) the fact that now it's possible that the pilot is on the ground instead of in the cockpit. They should not be confused. "What's the US gonna do when others get drones... gonna get real interesting..." Jeez, talk about missing the point. What's the US gonna do when other nations get airplanes, hmm?

You may have missed my point. Their existence has made such missions much easier, and therefore much more frequent than they would have been otherwise, which has political consequences. Whether that's a good thing or not is another (and very important) issue.

[Jason]

So they're just an improved version of airstrikes. But airstrikes have been around long before the technology was available to make them unmanned. I still don't see where the So What is about whether it's a manned aircraft or an unmanned one.

There are two different issues which people seem to confuse here, 1) the value and morality of airstrikes, and 2) the fact that now it's possible that the pilot is on the ground instead of in the cockpit. They should not be confused. "What's the US gonna do when others get drones... gonna get real interesting..." Jeez, talk about missing the point. What's the US gonna do when other nations get airplanes, hmm?

Replace drones with F-18s and the issue would be the same. Unless the targets are guarded by SAM sites, in which case there would be no issue as they'd clearly be a legitimate target (provided they're not in Pakistan).

[Seabass]

Could somebody explain their fascination with drones? Oooh... drones! Scary! I don't understand it at all. The missions are still planned by humans, the drone is still controlled by a human pilot... he's just not inside the plane itself. They're not automated and they can't fire within another nation's borders without approval any more than a manned airstrike which seeks to carry out the same mission. Drone strikes are just another sort of air strike; it's completely irrelevant whether or not somebody is on board!

The matter of air strikes against terrorist targets overseas is an entirely different matter. Arguing whether such tactics are moral or not is fine. But arguing whether the instruments have a pilot in the cockpit or on the ground is meaningless. The day humans are completely removed from the loop and the drones are deciding for themselves where to go and when to attack, then they become their own topic worth discussing.

Surely they have made such individual strikes easier, and less likely to involve the loss of an expensive aircraft and trained pilot if something goes wrong. Given that, their existence has made such missions more common than they would have been without the technology, which is pretty significant...

Yep. It isn't really the drones per se that are troubling, but rather the behavior that drones seem to have enabled. I think "drone strike" has become a sort of short-hand for "assassination by air-to-ground missile, done with alarming frequency."

[Ian]

I don't think they invite any greater callousness than already exists. It's not a bad theory, but I just can't get there. Were Air Force generals less aggressive during Vietnam because they had pilots to worry about? There are other concerns besides political ideas that UAVs are more expendable. They're also far cheaper, less likely to be detected, and can hover over areas for much, much longer. Whether or not to directly involve a pilot in a mission has, I think, little effect on whether or not the missions is going to be carried out - especially since, given the current circumstances, there's little likelihood of a human pilot being shot down anyway. If UAVs did not exist, I think the same recon & strike missions would have been carried out by manned planes over the last few years, almost no change at all.