Eeyup. Though there was the exception for combat situations on US soil, or as I like to call it the "Civil War Exception." Although, I do think the odds of there being another civil war are extremely slim right now.
Hey man, it's 'MURICA. Fuck the horse that's already bolted, worrying about the horse that only exists in incredibly unlikely hypothetical situations is where it's at.
Eeyup. Though there was the exception for combat situations on US soil, or as I like to call it the "Civil War Exception." Although, I do think the odds of there being another civil war are extremely slim right now.
Hey man, it's 'MURICA. Fuck the horse that's already bolted, worrying about the horse that only exists in incredibly unlikely hypothetical situations is where it's at.
Hey, I consider the "Civil War Exception" to be perfectly appropriate.
I just worry about what qualifies as a "combat situation" and the possibility of the pentagon revising its definition to be able to use drones in the future, but we'll burn that bridge when we get to it, I suppose.
I just worry about what qualifies as a "combat situation" and the possibility of the pentagon revising its definition to be able to use drones in the future, but we'll burn that bridge when we get to it, I suppose.
I really hope that a combat situation on American soil basically only comes down to openly revolting a la the siege of Fort Sumter.
I just worry about what qualifies as a "combat situation"...
This is the real legal question. Drones are a red herring. If it's legal to kill someone, then its legal to kill someone with a drone. The question is when is summary execution legal? Usually we say when someone is actively engaged in endangering lives. That often happens when we try to apprehend a criminal. Send in a team and end up having to shoot to kill because he's threatening the lives of the cops or troops. That situation would never happen with a drone because drones aren't sent to arrest people.
So the question becomes when does a drone become a legal option for that kind of execution? Do we have to wait until the guy has a gun pointed at a cop, or can we take him out earlier? How much earlier?
There are serious due process questions around this issue that have been a huge debate in the criminal law field since RICO was passed. Drones haven't changed that; they have just brought the question into public view because people are somehow more afraid of remote-controlled robots shooting them than of people shooting them.
To me, a drone is just a long range surprisingly accurate bullet.
That's pretty much correct. It's no different to targeting and firing a cruise missile, or firing a hellfire missile from a helicopter or jet. It's just the new tech for killing, so people find it scary, as opposed to the pretty much identical killing tech we've had for a very long time.
This is the real legal question. Drones are a red herring. If it's legal to kill someone, then its legal to kill someone with a drone.
A very similar sentiment I've seen is regarding the whole "drone strikes on US soil" question - Essentially, in asking that, you should also ask the same question about the Air Force performing an Air-strike in, say, Chicago - because in essence, you're asking the exact same question. As you say, the Drone is a red herring, the act of killing itself is the question.
The concern I have with drones is that they are unable to disobey orders.
No, but they also can't do anything without someone operating them, and that person CAN refuse to obey orders. It's essentially very similar to the fact that an M-16 rifle can't disobey orders. There's already a structure in place to deal with this problem.
I made so much cash from tips over the past two days that the stack has outgrown my wallet. Obvious solution was to fold the bills in half and rubber band that shit like I'm OG.
Finally got the abandoned open source project I adopted and forked to build using a modern compiler and pushed the code back up to Github. I still need to fix the assertion errors that take place when you run it, but at least the damned thing builds now!
My mom said she'd back me up when I talk to my dad about maybe getting some Festool equipment as a grad present to start a small woodshop. I still need to talk to the old man, but she's being really supportive and it bodes well.
I'm not so worried about drones now. But the wording makes me believe they've left the option open to just demolish your house with you in it or send a squad of soldiers after you.
I'm not so worried about drones now. But the wording makes me believe they've left the option open to just demolish your house with you in it or send a squad of soldiers after you.
They have left the option open, within certain circumstances. But unless you somehow think that the US is moments away from, say, a civil war featuring serious open warfare that would justify the use of US military force on US soil AND you plan on becoming a commander in the army trying to overthrow the current government, then it's really nothing more than a paranoid, irrational concern.
Seriously, think of the conditions that would have to be fulfilled for the US military to undertake serious operations against US citizens on US soil. I'm not going to say it's impossible and can never happen, but it's so unlikely that it's the next best thing. There's really not that much more to it, dude. I don't know what else to say that could reassure you.
Eh I'm really not all that worried about THIS administration doing so.
With the amount of shit they'd have to change to do so without a state of open civil war, I'd say that unless you plan on kicking off a civil war, probably no administration in your lifetime will, either.
Congratulations! Having kids is a neat experience. Hopefully you get luckily like we did on our second child and they sleep through the night constantly after 2 weeks.
Comments
So the question becomes when does a drone become a legal option for that kind of execution? Do we have to wait until the guy has a gun pointed at a cop, or can we take him out earlier? How much earlier?
There are serious due process questions around this issue that have been a huge debate in the criminal law field since RICO was passed. Drones haven't changed that; they have just brought the question into public view because people are somehow more afraid of remote-controlled robots shooting them than of people shooting them.
Some day, we will have weapons that can literally target and kill a single individual from hundreds of miles away.
Seriously, think of the conditions that would have to be fulfilled for the US military to undertake serious operations against US citizens on US soil. I'm not going to say it's impossible and can never happen, but it's so unlikely that it's the next best thing. There's really not that much more to it, dude. I don't know what else to say that could reassure you.