[PavlovsCat]

Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, 16 years old, born to the "wrong father" and killed by a drone strike 2 weeks after his father was murdered. I say murdered because without a trial and imminent threat, that's what it is. And this is not a solitary incident either, just a rather poignant one. Next question?

edit:

http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/05/24/what-not-specifically-t...

In other words, it sounds like some in the Administration suspect that someone within the targeting chain of command may have invented the Ibrahim al-Banna presence as a way to get at Awlaki’s son.

If this doesn't make you throw up, what will?

[embolism]

Murdered by the NSA? Or is this a reason to bring down the entire US?

[PavlovsCat]

No, murdered by sending out drones in random directions without any targeting info. These things and their programming just pop out of thin air, after all. And then they track just by scent, for weeks even.

Or is this a reason to bring down the entire US?

For someone in the third world who may have little to lose and becomes witness to such senseless slaughter? Maybe.

But then again I'm not quite sure what you're even asking, maybe elaborate. Do you think maybe cutting down on the nazi stuff a liiiittle bit would endanger the US in any meaningful way?

[krapp]

No, murdered by sending out drones in random directions without any targeting info. These things and their programming just pop out of thin air, after all. And then they track just by scent, for weeks even.

I'm pretty sure that's not how drones work. They're not autonomous, self-aware predators that can smell a Muslim from a mile away, and make their own decisions about when and how and who to kill. I'm pretty sure there's always a pilot with a joystick watching a camera and pulling a trigger.

Not that that makes it any better, but unless you can provide some proof what you're describing seems like science fiction.

[PavlovsCat]

I was being sarcastic.

I'm pretty sure there's always a pilot with a joystick watching a camera and pulling a trigger.

Just like there is always a president near the top signing the order, in some shape or other. And: people collecting intelligence about whoever they are asked to collect intelligence about, because that's just the "requirements handed down to them". Which was the point I hid under my sarcasm.

[krapp]

It's getting hard to tell lately. My mistake.

[embolism]

I'm pointing out that espionage is a part of real world statecraft and that it's naïve to just rail against the NSA for doing it.

I do believe that there should be consequences for a lot of these actions. I'd just rather people were discussing what we actually know and how things could realistically be improved (by individuals, corporations, and'the government) than just jeering like an angry mob.

[PavlovsCat]

You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real world statecraft", but when I hear that I have to think of Larkin's "This Be The Verse":

fools in old-style hats and coats, / Who half the time were soppy-stern / And half at one another's throats.

[embolism]

you don't seem very constructive - which is my point

[PavlovsCat]

By giving you the evidence you asked for? Or by also making points you don't like?

Feel free to respond to either, but spare me transparent excuses for not doing so and how that is somehow my fault.