Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51

Thread: Snowden: Valid Drone Strike Target or No? And Why?

  1. #21
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,617
    It's a good question though, makes you consider where you fall in terms of our nation's defense, whether it should be run strictly according to military protocol, in which I think he's certainly a valid candidate - whether you agree or disagree with his actions/intent, he certainly committed treason - or if you want a more reasoned approach, where you're considering all aspects.

  2. #22
    Come on folks, drone strike, really. In this case we need find him, snatch him and bring his butt back for trial. The kid is a traitor to this country. I love all these people who take it upon themselves to decide what needs to be told. Regardless of the dangers it places other people lives in. If you choose to get into the intelligence business expect to see (stuff) that may not sit well with you personally. If that is going to put you in conflict, don't take the job in the first place. Yet, once you sign that non-disclosure agreement you've committed and there is no going back.
    So let the U.S. go get this guy, go thru due process throw his ass in a cell and lose the key.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    So, we have a man who broke our highest levels of security, and did (as variously stated by current and former Defense and Intelligence people) untold and massive damage to the security of the United States.

    We have a man who fled the United States, went to China, and now cannot be located (some word today he may be in Russia).

    By any definition used throughout the "War on Terror", this man could be classified as an enemy combatant and an onging threat to the security fo the United States due to hsi former clearence level and what ELSE he might know or know how to access.

    As such, the intellectual question should be asked.....is Snowden a valid target for a U.S. Drone Strike?

    As we've discussed previously, his citizenship (for those in favor of drone strikes) and his lack of public trail and finding of guilt are irrelevant to this question. Only his actions and his potential future actions/what he might be planning to do going forward in terms of damaging the U.S. should be considered.

    So, assuming he is in a country who will exploit him and/or refuse to extradite him back to the United States......drone strike yes? Or Drone strike no?
    No, not even close. There's no reasonable basis to assert that he's engaging in war on the US; he disclosed a US surveillance program that (at the very least) there is legitimate reason to be concerned about and did not disclose anything else. He has not suggested he will do so, hasn't killed or harmed anyone, and hasn't taken up arms against the US.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    No, not even close. There's no reasonable basis to assert that he's engaging in war on the US; he disclosed a US surveillance program that (at the very least) there is legitimate reason to be concerned about and did not disclose anything else. He has not suggested he will do so, hasn't killed or harmed anyone, and hasn't taken up arms against the US.
    Interesting take.

    So, planning (but not personally carrying out) terrorist attacks, State-directed drone-death is go.

    Planning and carrying our a massive intelligence breach that results in attacks/exploitation (potentially) and sharing secrets with Russia and China (potentially) that may deeply infringe upon U.S. security, State-directed drone-death is a strict no-go.

    And the basis is "War" as you've previously legally defined it, i.e. in laymans terms basicly any group of more than two people who claim they're at "War" with us for some ideological reason and desire change, and have made some physical (only physical) attack upon the people or property of the United States.

    Hmm. Good thing for Snowden he didn't have an accomplice, because he clearly met the "idelogical change desire" portion, and the violence portion is generally now far more likely (say the Security talking headpices).

    How would you handle him D, if he's in the remote reaches of say, China, Russia or some other non-Extradiction nation-state?

  5. #25
    Drone strike? Really? That's a pretty out there suggestion as a potential course of action.

  6. #26
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Interesting take.

    So, planning (but not personally carrying out) terrorist attacks, State-directed drone-death is go.

    Planning and carrying our a massive intelligence breach that results in attacks/exploitation (potentially) and sharing secrets with Russia and China (potentially) that may deeply infringe upon U.S. security, State-directed drone-death is a strict no-go.

    And the basis is "War" as you've previously legally defined it, i.e. in laymans terms basicly any group of more than two people who claim they're at "War" with us for some ideological reason and desire change, and have made some physical (only physical) attack upon the people or property of the United States.

    Hmm. Good thing for Snowden he didn't have an accomplice, because he clearly met the "idelogical change desire" portion, and the violence portion is generally now far more likely (say the Security talking headpices).

    How would you handle him D, if he's in the remote reaches of say, China, Russia or some other non-Extradiction nation-state?
    Try a little harder. You can't even stretch this to make a reasonable comparison. Besides which, what did Snowden actually reveal? Policies. Not operational information. To a libertarian, that should be of some interest. And the more that is revealed, the more flagrant the "data mining" by the NSA. Anybody who really thought a largely unaccountable agency, monitored by a court they own, would stop at "shelving" data but not looking at it, must be the same person who thought Bill Clinton didn't inhale.

    Here's an interesting link... the view of three whistleblowers who tried to expose these practices within their agency according to protocol... yeah, you can guess what happened to them...

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...table/2428809/
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-17-2013 at 09:00 PM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Try a little harder. You can't even.....


    You've gotten oddly obsessive with this line of posting of late.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Interesting take.

    So, planning (but not personally carrying out) terrorist attacks, State-directed drone-death is go.

    Planning and carrying our a massive intelligence breach that results in attacks/exploitation (potentially) and sharing secrets with Russia and China (potentially) that may deeply infringe upon U.S. security, State-directed drone-death is a strict no-go.

    And the basis is "War" as you've previously legally defined it, i.e. in laymans terms basicly any group of more than two people who claim they're at "War" with us for some ideological reason and desire change, and have made some physical (only physical) attack upon the people or property of the United States.

    Hmm. Good thing for Snowden he didn't have an accomplice, because he clearly met the "idelogical change desire" portion, and the violence portion is generally now far more likely (say the Security talking headpices).

    How would you handle him D, if he's in the remote reaches of say, China, Russia or some other non-Extradiction nation-state?
    It's got nothing to do with whether he had accomplices and everything to do with what he actually did (which is nowhere near what you describe).

  9. #29
    I think we should blow up the subcontractor and kill all of their employee's. It's the only sensible move. The problem is we outsourced the drone program and the subcontractor may have a different view.

    Can a public company be trusted to spy on and kill Americans including potential competitors in both intel and none intel areas? Apparently if the President says they can and his office lies to Congress providing oversight and a secret panel of judges who were also lied to rubber stamps it.

    The answer to Warfish's question is yes we can kill him through drone or other means. Is it legitimate is open for debate of course the debate should not be in public or truthful.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-18-2013 at 08:56 AM.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I think we should blow up the subcontractor and kill all of their employee's. It's the only sensible move. The problem is we outsourced the drone program and the subcontractor may have a different view.

    Can a public company be trusted to spy on and kill Americans including potential competitors in both intel and none intel areas? Apparently if the President says they can and his office lies to Congress providing oversight and a secret panel of judges who were also lied to rubber stamps it.

    The answer to Warfish's question is yes we can kill him through drone or other means. Is it legitimate is open for debate of course the debate should not be in public or truthful.
    I'm honestly amazed at the complacency of our resident libertarians at this whole story. The gist is: we're fine with the government passing secret laws to spy on our own citizens secretly and have the process monitored by a secret court that rubber stamps the process.

    Snowden broke the law and will certainly be prosecuted zealously if the U.S. can get their hands on him. If he had been a good little boy and followed protocol in whistleblowing, he would have been destroyed just the same. Issue isn't really whether it's a good idea for the U.S. to engage in spying on its citizens for security reasons.

    The issue is why the passing of such a law permitting the policy would not be subject to the scrutiny of the electorate. The NSA's argument that even the knowledge that this could be done would jeopardize national security is sheer bunk. They want black ops privileges against our own citizens? Right. And the sheep shall be sheared.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    I'm honestly amazed at the complacency of our resident libertarians at this whole story. The gist is: we're fine with the government passing secret laws to spy on our own citizens secretly and have the process monitored by a secret court that rubber stamps the process.

    Snowden broke the law and will certainly be prosecuted zealously if the U.S. can get their hands on him. If he had been a good little boy and followed protocol in whistleblowing, he would have been destroyed just the same. Issue isn't really whether it's a good idea for the U.S. to engage in spying on its citizens for security reasons.

    The issue is why the passing of such a law permitting the policy would not be subject to the scrutiny of the electorate. The NSA's argument that even the knowledge that this could be done would jeopardize national security is sheer bunk. They want black ops privileges against our own citizens? Right. And the sheep shall be sheared.
    The issue goes far beyond that. The government subcontracted the spying to a public for profit company. Guess what boys and girls, inside information is profitable.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    It's got nothing to do with whether he had accomplices and everything to do with what he actually did (which is nowhere near what you describe).
    Perhaps.

    It's clear he disclosed calssified material, the quotes saying so from high-level Govt. sources is plentiful.

    It's clear he did "major damage" to the security of the Country via this illegal disclosure, again, the quotes from those "in the know" in Intelliegence are out there if you wish to persue them.

    So, intellectually speaking, an argument could be made that the harm he caused or allowed to be caused in the future could be more and more broad than anything one man planning attacks in a hut in the Middle East could do.

    Your point is a valid one of course, he (Snowden) didn't do it for "War" as those in AQ do, and he (Snowden) is not part of a group.

    I would ask if you think either of those facts would stop our Government from killing him, if they felt they had the chance and plausible deniabillity, if he (Snowden) were located in a nation that would not otherwise send him back for trial? The question then being how slippery is the slippery slop of killing U.S. Citizens in the same of security, protection of the Nation, etc.

    I'm obviously Devil's Advocating here, as clearly I do not support the killing of ANY U.S. citizens via drones unless engaged in direct armed violence against U.S. forces (i.e. no, I don't kill a planner just because it's hard to go arrest/detain him or because Guantanamo is politically uncomfortable).

  13. #33
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Perhaps.

    It's clear he disclosed calssified material, the quotes saying so from high-level Govt. sources is plentiful.

    It's clear he did "major damage" to the security of the Country via this illegal disclosure, again, the quotes from those "in the know" in Intelliegence are out there if you wish to persue them.

    So, intellectually speaking, an argument could be made that the harm he caused or allowed to be caused in the future could be more and more broad than anything one man planning attacks in a hut in the Middle East could do.

    Your point is a valid one of course, he (Snowden) didn't do it for "War" as those in AQ do, and he (Snowden) is not part of a group.

    I would ask if you think either of those facts would stop our Government from killing him, if they felt they had the chance and plausible deniabillity, if he (Snowden) were located in a nation that would not otherwise send him back for trial? The question then being how slippery is the slippery slop of killing U.S. Citizens in the same of security, protection of the Nation, etc.

    I'm obviously Devil's Advocating here, as clearly I do not support the killing of ANY U.S. citizens via drones unless engaged in direct armed violence against U.S. forces (i.e. no, I don't kill a planner just because it's hard to go arrest/detain him or because Guantanamo is politically uncomfortable).
    I wish you had picked a better example, or at least one that has been actually shown to have caused damage to national security. That has not yet been proven at all, despite the usual BS from the intelligence brokers who don't want accountability. Do you really think that actual terrorists wouldn't expect that their phone records/computers, etc. would be vulnerable to monitoring? How dumb are these terrorists supposed to be?

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    How dumb are these terrorists supposed to be?
    *sigh*

    Perhaps that is a question better and more appropriately posed to the Government that is infringing upon 350,000,000 U.S. residents privacy rights, and spending billions of taxpayer dollars to do so.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    So, intellectually speaking, an argument could be made that the harm he caused or allowed to be caused in the future could be more and more broad than anything one man planning attacks in a hut in the Middle East could do.
    true. But irrelevant. The harm the guy who came up with derivative MBSs did was probably worse, too - but "levels of harm" aren't really the standard.

    I would ask if you think either of those facts would stop our Government from killing him, if they felt they had the chance and plausible deniabillity, if he (Snowden) were located in a nation that would not otherwise send him back for trial? The question then being how slippery is the slippery slop of killing U.S. Citizens in the same of security, protection of the Nation, etc.
    I would hope so. And yes, until I see otherwise, I will trust so.

    I'm obviously Devil's Advocating here, as clearly I do not support the killing of ANY U.S. citizens via drones unless engaged in direct armed violence against U.S. forces (i.e. no, I don't kill a planner just because it's hard to go arrest/detain him or because Guantanamo is politically uncomfortable).
    Yeah, I know where you stand on these issues

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    ....but "levels of harm" aren't really the standard.
    According to whom? You, certainly....but those in power? Those who control the weapons platforms?

    I would hope so. And yes, until I see otherwise, I will trust so.
    So as long as they do it where you cannot "see' it, it's all good then. Plays right into why things like the Prism/Data Mining programs are such secrets in the first place, see no evil, hear no evil, is no evil apparently.....trust-but-verify doesn; work so well when there is no abillity to verify.

    Seems we'll agree to disagree, I believe your view is one of a quisling, a supporter by his very act of non-interest non-questioning belief in the inherant good nature and trustabillity of the State behemoth.

    You, of course, think I am a deranged paranoid loon so worried about freedom I overlook far too much real-world neccessity.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    I think we should blow up the subcontractor and kill all of their employee's. It's the only sensible move. The problem is we outsourced the drone program and the subcontractor may have a different view.

    Can a public company be trusted to spy on and kill Americans including potential competitors in both intel and none intel areas? Apparently if the President says they can and his office lies to Congress providing oversight and a secret panel of judges who were also lied to rubber stamps it.

    The answer to Warfish's question is yes we can kill him through drone or other means. Is it legitimate is open for debate of course the debate should not be in public or truthful.

    Just to help me out here: When did we outsource drone strikes?
    I happen to agree that outsourcing intel gathering is expensive and stupid.
    Booz Allen Hamilton has been doing things for over 100 years but this latest activity is a bit much. Actually I used them in the day for management input on strategy etc. They are now into weapons design also. You can't do EVERYTHING well.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Just to help me out here: When did we outsource drone strikes?
    I happen to agree that outsourcing intel gathering is expensive and stupid.
    Booz Allen Hamilton has been doing things for over 100 years but this latest activity is a bit much. Actually I used them in the day for management input on strategy etc. They are now into weapons design also. You can't do EVERYTHING well.

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=1

    This notice is made in accordance with FAR Part 5.203 and will account for the 15 day pre-solicitation issuance requirement. The anticipated release date for the solicitation is November 1, 2011.

    The Department of State (DOS), Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), Office of Security Technology (ST), has a requirement for a qualified contractor to provide worldwide Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) support services. The mission of the UAV program is to provide real-time air surveillance of fixed installations, proposed movement routes and movement operations, and special events thereby improving security in high threat or potentially high threat environments. The UAV program shall provide the capability to:

    •Achieve and maintain situational awareness.
    •Automatically generate and disseminate high quality video imaging.
    •Respond to a security incident at locations remote from the core of operations.
    •Disseminate threat information for use in route planning.
    •Receive, view, and analyze in route activity.



    The contractor shall provide Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for Tier I and Tier II/Tier II+ as classified by the United States Air Force appropriate for the missions and flight services specified. The contractor shall also provide a logistics service package to include but not limited to systems management, staffing, operation, maintenance, repair, tools, parts, supply and reporting activities at levels adequate to meet or exceed the requirements of the solicitation.
    So is management of these public companies beholden to the shareholders or the citizens? When is there information that's a conflict of interest? Presumably they are gathering phone records of competitors as part of a general sweep. Isn't spying on competitors anti-competitive and in violation of anti-trust laws?
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-18-2013 at 10:24 AM.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=1



    So is management of these public companies beholden to the shareholders or the citizens? When is there information that's a conflict of interest? Presumably they are gathering phone records of competitors as part of a general sweep. Isn't spying on competitors anti-competitive and in violation of anti-trust laws?

    Thanks. Was actually not aware.
    I have a TOTAL problem with this. The outsourcing of combat activity is totally wrong and BS.
    Drones should be only with the command and control of the government directly - either a military arm or the CIA.
    The same should be for intel gathering. A government entity.
    I, frankly, think we have lost it from a government admin standpoint.
    I don't even like private contractors serving food in mess halls.
    This is costly and corrupt.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    So as long as they do it where you cannot "see' it, it's all good then. Plays right into why things like the Prism/Data Mining programs are such secrets in the first place, see no evil, hear no evil, is no evil apparently.....trust-but-verify doesn; work so well when there is no abillity to verify.

    Seems we'll agree to disagree, I believe your view is one of a quisling, a supporter by his very act of non-interest non-questioning belief in the inherant good nature and trustabillity of the State behemoth.

    You, of course, think I am a deranged paranoid loon so worried about freedom I overlook far too much real-world neccessity.


    Ignoring the hyperbole, the Snowden experience proves my point quite well, I think. regardless of whether you think he was warranted in coming forward, the reality is that these programs go through far too many people and eyes to be kept secret forever if there is an eggregious enough abuse to trigger moral outrage.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us