7 Responses

  1. This cartoon is silly and you’re smart enough to know it. Drones are a tactic used to kill terrorists in places where conventional forces either cannot or will not act. The scenario in this cartoon would not take place because, if there was a terrorist in the house, law enforcement would arrest him. Just like they’ve done in several cases. No drones required. There are very good arguments against the US drone program. This cartoon is not one of them.

    • Only if you assume that those are US missiles or that the US is the only one who would use them .
      US actions overseas have left the door open to any other country to go after US terrorists (Mr Bush right down to any of his civilian employee torturers ) with a drone strike.

    • Seth,

      While you must enjoy the chorus of clowns from inside the beltway, the fact remains that since it has been “leaked” that “any male of military age who happens to be in an area suspected of having “terrorists” present are defined as terrorists”

      I am sure that you did not miss Stephen Colbert’s report on exactly this issue.
      http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414704/may-31-2012/the-word—two-birds-with-one-drone

      Enjoy life in the bubble.

    • “The scenario in this cartoon would not take place because, if there was a terrorist in the house, law enforcement would arrest him.”

      As far as I know Dick Cheney, for example, still runs free and under any reasonable interpretation of US law and treaties he is a war criminal.

      The popular belief system in the US today is based entirely on double-standards.

  2. it happened in philadelphia:

    Twenty years ago this Friday, city police dropped a bomb on this block and let it burn. Five children and six adults, members of a small radical collective called MOVE, died; 61 homes in a middle-class neighborhood were destroyed. As the nation watched, Philadelphia became the city that bombed its own people.

    A generation later, the residents of Osage Avenue are still trying to get their homes back.

    Philadelphia has spent $42 million in financial settlements, investigation and rebuilding to try to fix what happened that day. It was a law enforcement failure so spectacular that it would not be equaled until the siege near Waco eight years later. A month ago, 24 homeowners won a $12 million suit against the city for the botched rebuilding and repairs of their homes.

    “We’re still in it,” says Mayor John Street, who was a city councilman in 1985. “It’s the never-ending story.”

    link to usatoday.com

    • Thanks for reminding us of this event, Mark!

      The Philadelphia MOVE bombing needs to be brought up – by readers, if not the reporters themselves – every time a story about successful drone strikes is published/aired. People need to be reminded of what happens on the ground to the many innocents who were too near the target, the damage to homes and infrastructure, and reminded of the hatred and resentment that result.

      “Hearts & minds”, eh? All that our automated, remote, hi-tech drone weaponry is getting the United States is another generation or two of sworn enemies. Is the “savings” worth it? How about the rare “hit”?

  3. What assurance do we, as American citizens have, that it won’t happen? The impending useage of drones for surveillance on the borders, in various cities’ ‘high crime’ areas and any other event that might be construed as ‘subversive’ or ‘troublesome’ has implications much farther reaching than getting a photo of some ‘dissidents’ or directing the police to some ‘crime in progress’. Arming the drones with something more ‘useable’ than a camera would be simple, and in light of America’s ongoing obsession with ‘security’, almost logical. Since when has restraint override fear, in the quest of eliminating the ‘terror threat’?

Comments are closed.