[TheRealVille]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is continuing to criticize his fellow Republicans for their filibuster of incoming CIA Director John O. Brennan over drone policy. In an interview with the Huffington Post, McCain referred to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) as “wackos.”
“They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else,” McCain said. “But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.”
Asked to clarify, McCain said he was referencing “Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.”
McCain and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) took strong exception to the filibuster, saying they support the possible use of drones to prevent terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. Some Republicans have privately worried that the high-profile stand, while garnering a lot of positive attention, will ultimately be bad for the party.

Is cannibalism happening?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...cko-birds/

[WideMiddle03]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/...ere-it-is/

"However, Carney added that “if the United States were under attack, there were an imminent threat [emphasis added],” then the president would have the authority to order military action to repel said threat.

So, although Holder’s response to Sen. Paul’s is a flat “No,” it sounds like we still haven’t escaped “imminent threat vs. immediate threat” purgatory.

Still, regardless of the letter’s brevity and the fact that Sens. Lindsay Graham and John McCain characterized Sen. Paul’s question as “ridiculous,” the fact that his filibuster pushed the White House into issuing an official response means one thing: The freshman senator gets results."

[TheRealThing]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/...ere-it-is/

"However, Carney added that “if the United States were under attack, there were an imminent threat [emphasis added],” then the president would have the authority to order military action to repel said threat.

So, although Holder’s response to Sen. Paul’s is a flat “No,” it sounds like we still haven’t escaped “imminent threat vs. immediate threat” purgatory.

Still, regardless of the letter’s brevity and the fact that Sens. Lindsay Graham and John McCain characterized Sen. Paul’s question as “ridiculous,” the fact that his filibuster pushed the White House into issuing an official response means one thing: The freshman senator gets results."

Not only that. To my knowledge, this is first time he has reponded to pressure from anybody that I know of. The Speaker and the Minority leader have certainly gotten nothing but the presidential snooze button that I can recall.

[vundy33]

I have a hard time believe that so many people, including most here, are against drone strikes on Americans overseas who are enemies of the state and actively plotting to kill Americans. Once you become a terrorist out to kill Americans, ya kind of throw your right to a fair trial away in my opinion.

They are the enemy, American or not, and I have no compassion for their "right to a fair trial".

I know that isn't what this post is about really, but I figured I would address it.

[the other guy]

Who picks who to kill

[vundy33]

Who picks who to kill

You act like we just kill anyone we want. No. I know how it was done before all this when guys like Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, were targeted. Military/CIA chooses targets, it gets ran by the President. If the target presets a threat to the U.S., they die.

Never thought I'd see the day where Republicans march for terrorist's rights. Or any Americans for that matter, regardless of party.

War is dirty...these politicians that want to try to make it clean can't even comprehend it. If we have an American that chooses to leave America, denounce America, and actively work to kill Americans, they need to go. All sending in troops to capture them and give them a trial does is put American lives at risk and lower the likelihood of a successful operation.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I have a hard time believe that so many people, including most here, are against drone strikes on Americans overseas who are enemies of the state and actively plotting to kill Americans. Once you become a terrorist out to kill Americans, ya kind of throw your right to a fair trial away in my opinion.

They are the enemy, American or not, and I have no compassion for their "right to a fair trial".

I know that isn't what this post is about really, but I figured I would address it.

I can agree with that 100%, however, it just makes the dems look increasingly ignorant on the subject when that party screams daily for fair trials and constitutional rights for other things.

[vundy33]

I really don't even think it should be a political issue, lol. I also don't think a civilian, the President, should be the one that makes the decision either. Let the military do it, we screw things up but civilians putting their hands in matters they know absolutely nothing about has screwed things up even more.

One example was our old Rules of Engagement in Iraq and Afghan, and even now really. Alot of guys died while civilians in Washington, the people behind our pathetic ROE, got to go home to there mansions.

Let the military command decide and discuss with civilian leadership if needed.

[vundy33]

Now when it comes to the military/drones being used in America in a time of crisis like 9/11, I'm ok with that too as long as it's the last resort. The National Guard just isn't equipped well enough, or trained well enough to be honest, to do it on their own. Only during a very bad crisis as a last resort though, of course, when civilian police/health workers/fire departments need help.

Not for using drones to spy in America though. Only it there was an imminent threat, but I can't imagine a scenario where we would need to use drones to spy on our own soil, we have other means.

[Hoot Gibson]

I fully support the military's use of drones to take out terrorists overseas, and if an American citizen is strolling along with a group of suspected terrorists, then they are fair game as well, IMO. I do find liberals support of the increased use of drones after they opposed "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were employed during the Bush years on a very small number of high ranking al Qaeda members extremely hypocritical.

However, Rand Paul is absolutely correct in opposing the deployment of drones against American citizens on American soil. Unless they are imminent threats to a large group of Americans, drone strikes should never be made against our own citizens on American soil and when asked very simple and very direct questions on the subject, the Obama administration should have given definitive answers quickly. Americans are guaranteed due process under the Constitution. Getting blown away on an American street because a citizen is suspected of being a terrorist is clearly not constitutional.

I despise both Lindsey Graham and his idiotic mentor, John McCain. If Graham has a primary challenger next year, I will be sending him or her a check. I might even send his Democrat challenger a check if he survives a primary challenge. Graham is reason enough not to consider a retirement to South Carolina. The same kind of idiots put him into office as voted Obama into office for a second term.

Finally, the U.S. military has absolutely no business using armed drones on American soil except in the event of an all out war on American soil. None. Furthermore, use of drones by any civilian government agency should be tightly controlled. We don't need to be using drones to spy on American citizens or searching for marijuana plants.

[Hoot Gibson]

It was good to see a few honest liberals, such as Sen. Ron Wyden siding with Rand Paul on this issue. If anybody in the Bush administration had hesitated for a second to answer the questions that Ted Cruz and Paul asked about the constitutionality of targeting Americans with drone attacks on American soil, Democrats would have unanimously condemned Bush and the media would have piled on. I respect guys like Wyden and Kucinich, who hold the same positions regardless of which party controls the White House. They are men of principle, unlike McCain, Graham, and most other elected Democrats. The good guys are just badly outnumbered by the bad ones in DC.

[TheRealThing]

I have a hard time believe that so many people, including most here, are against drone strikes on Americans overseas who are enemies of the state and actively plotting to kill Americans. Once you become a terrorist out to kill Americans, ya kind of throw your right to a fair trial away in my opinion.

They are the enemy, American or not, and I have no compassion for their "right to a fair trial".

I know that isn't what this post is about really, but I figured I would address it.

Far as I'm concerned every last one of them should get a hellfire missile down his shorts. But, I thought the argument was whether that could happen on American soil? You have to admit, we shouldn't have much trouble in at least getting a swat team together to go pop a cap on somebody if need be whose plotting to kill innocent citizens in country.

[nky]

I wonder how the liberals would answer this-If some group or individual has been labeled a domestic terrorist could the President or some arm of the US government order a drone strike without due process on American Soil?

In 2006 FBI Director i Robert S. Mueller said "Terrorism is terrorism, no matter what the motive," "There’s a clear difference between constitutionally protected advocacy—which is the right of all Americans—and violent criminal activity."

Who is going to make that call? Would President Obama order a drone strike against Bill Ayers?

[RunItUpTheGut]

I fully support the military's use of drones to take out terrorists overseas, and if an American citizen is strolling along with a group of suspected terrorists, then they are fair game as well, IMO. I do find liberals support of the increased use of drones after they opposed "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were employed during the Bush years on a very small number of high ranking al Qaeda members extremely hypocritical.

However, Rand Paul is absolutely correct in opposing the deployment of drones against American citizens on American soil. Unless they are imminent threats to a large group of Americans, drone strikes should never be made against our own citizens on American soil and when asked very simple and very direct questions on the subject, the Obama administration should have given definitive answers quickly. Americans are guaranteed due process under the Constitution. Getting blown away on an American street because a citizen is suspected of being a terrorist is clearly not constitutional.

I despise both Lindsey Graham and his idiotic mentor, John McCain. If Graham has a primary challenger next year, I will be sending him or her a check. I might even send his Democrat challenger a check if he survives a primary challenge. Graham is reason enough not to consider a retirement to South Carolina. The same kind of idiots put him into office as voted Obama into office for a second term.

Finally, the U.S. military has absolutely no business using armed drones on American soil except in the event of an all out war on American soil. None. Furthermore, use of drones by any civilian government agency should be tightly controlled. We don't need to be using drones to spy on American citizens or searching for marijuana plants.

This was my exact point as well.
I dont understand how you could be against the use of interrogation that we did while siding with this administrations use of using drones on American citizens. Thats the most hypocritical thing ive ever heard.

I for one am for the use, no matter who gives the order, homeland security in this day and time is vital for our safety, but with crack downs on immigration, which the dems are against, would in essence end this in my opinion. Im not sure why we let anyone enter this country right now with citizens already begging for jobs.

[RunItUpTheGut]

It was kind of funny to see Obama having lunch with Repub senators.
For the first time, he has no choice but to listen.

[TheRealThing]

This was my exact point as well.
I dont understand how you could be against the use of interrogation that we did while siding with this administrations use of using drones on American citizens. Thats the most hypocritical thing ive ever heard.

I for one am for the use, no matter who gives the order, homeland security in this day and time is vital for our safety, but with crack downs on immigration, which the dems are against, would in essence end this in my opinion. Im not sure why we let anyone enter this country right now with citizens already begging for jobs.

The progressives and the modern liberals have gotten together, agreeing for the time being to unite under the "big tent" philosophy which, is sort of coalition put together by the dems to form a voting electorate. In short, if there ever was a true primordial soup, it's ingredients are the two groups mentioned above along with gays, abortion rights advocates, snake charmers, labor, environmentalists and anybody else they can get "in order to form a more perfect temporary union", whose only real cohesion is born of a philosophy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Somewhere along the way the thinkers of this zoo stew, decided it was taking way too long to win the advantage they were looking for. The idea was to change the majority voting paradigm from the overwhelmingly white conservative Christian ideology to something more to their liking. To control government would mean they could at last ressurect the socialist ghosts of the past, which trace their roots back to the New Deal plans of FDR. Hence the flood of unchecked illegals who, I predict will be awarded amnesty and welfare benefits en toto. In an attempt to gain the upper hand these guys would willingly throw our fates to the wind with this glut of illegals. Gotta hand it to them, it's working. It worked for Obama in spades but, I gotta say I really don't think it was the founding fathers vision that everybody on the planet would try to immigrate here.

This is why the dems are unwilling to see a national ID issued to voters. It's got nothing at all to do with fairness and everything to do with counting illegal votes they know they have in the bag, because of the federal goodies the dems promise will never end. That is unless those damnable republicans ever get back in charge. To my mind, it is the perfect 5th column in that there are unlimited throngs of insurgents ready to cross the southern border, sanctioned and backed by the federal government.

[Beetle01]

I can't even believe drone strikes are being considered for use on American soil. The only use for drones would be unarmed drones patrolling the borders.

It is basically the same thing as agreeing that it is okay for F16's or other bombers to drop bombs on American citizens, while the payload is smaller, is it really that big of a difference. The American military and intelligence agencies have killed thousands of innocent people to try and eliminate terrorists around the globe.

Not only should it not even be an option to use preemptively on Americans in America, it should not be used anywhere.

As we all know, our intelligence agencies are not always correct or have the best info. They do a lot of great things, but often times their "evidence" is extremely circumstantial, and to think our govt can just issue a kill order on a citizen, whether on American soil or abroad is just crazy to me.

Let's look at Anwar Al Awlaki (sp?) an American citizen (renounced though I believe) who had contact with multiple known terrorists. The CIA carried out a drone strike killing him, his 16 year old son (who also is an American citizen) as well as 9 other people on their way or at a BBQ. The WH response was that the son should have had a "more responsible father". Also, if they had so much evidence again Awlaki why did they not bring him up on charges? It has even come out now that the CIA had assets nearby who were ready to grab him, but instead the order came to carry out the drone strike.

I can not think of one instance or scenario where a drone would be more capable than a pilot being deployed in a fighter. They aren't fast, they definitely couldn't catch a 747 or any other type of fast moving plane.

They serve one purpose, surveillance, and delivering ordinance on that target if needed. There has never been a time when we have needed to put fighters/bombers in the air to hit a target on US soil, why do we need hundreds/thousands of drones patrolling our skies? If some unforeseen circumstance arose in which it was necessary you could easily get a fighter there quicker than you could a drone.

The President does not have the authority to preemptively issue a kill order on an American citizen because intelligence agencies "think" they may be "planning" to do something.

In what scenario could this possibly happen and not be a complete disaster? Let's assume that they have undeniable evidence that specific person or group of people are going to carry out an attack, or are in the process of carrying out that plan.. ala TImothy Mcveigh driving his Ryder truck down the highway. Are they going to hit him with a missile, what about the innocent people nearby?

Would it not be more reasonable to put the LE agencies into action to stop/confront and attempt to arrest/kill the targets? Isn't that why we have put billions into training and supplying them? I mean for what other reason could these agencies possibly have to be buying up billions of rounds of ammo as well as LAV's?

There is not one possible scenario where having drones in our skies is the solution over any other type of law enforcement/military action.

Now if a LE agency gets a warrant to use a drone for surveillance of a target, I have no problem with that, it's no different than wire tapping, or guys hanging out in a van monitoring hidden microphones and cameras. At least in that case they have followed the rule of law.

[TheRealVille]

Far as I'm concerned every last one of them should get a hellfire missile down his shorts. But, I thought the argument was whether that could happen on American soil? You have to admit, we shouldn't have much trouble in at least getting a swat team together to go pop a cap on somebody if need be whose plotting to kill innocent citizens in country.

How is this any different than doing it with drones?

[Hoot Gibson]

Suspects get an opportunity to surrender to SWAT teams. AFAIK, no drone has ever taken its first prisoner. That is the difference.

[TheRealVille]

Suspects get an opportunity to surrender to SWAT teams. AFAIK, no drone has ever taken its first prisoner. That is the difference.

Has any American ever been killed on American soil by a drone?

[Hoot Gibson]

Has any American ever been killed on American soil by a drone?

Not to my knowledge, but President Transparency has proven to be a master of the political cover-up. Who knows what Obama's minions have done in the past four years? What Rand Paul did was force the Obama administration go on record supporting a basic constitutional right that we have as Americans - and it only took him 13 hours to get a straight answer. That is a record of which any Kentuckian should be proud.

If more people in Congress had Rand Paul's courage, we would have had answers about what happened in the Fast and Furious and Benghazi scandals before the election. Obama's election marked the death of political and criminal accountability in Washington.

[Beetle01]

Has any American ever been killed on American soil by a drone?

How is this relevant, the drone program is new when it comes to deploying it in American skies, and is not even in full effect.

Personally I don't think it's worth the money to keep hundreds/thousands of drones in the skies at all times.

What exactly is it you think these drones will prevent/solve, that can't be done with other law enforcement assets?

The drone program is going to be the "enforcement" arm for the Patriot Act/NDAA. Two pieces of legislation that completely shred the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. That gives the Fed. govt the authority to brand someone a terrorist and carry out a kill order, completely ignoring the rights of that American citizen.

As I stated our intelligence agencies do a lot of great things, but they are not perfect, far from it in fact.

Even Hoot, in a post above, shows me exactly what is wrong with these types of programs when he stated something along the lines of "if an American citizen is overseas and walking along with a group of "suspected" terrorists and is killed"

Being suspected of crime does not make you guilty, we imprison people all the time for extremely long periods of time for things that turn out eventually to be innocent of, let alone the people who are accused of crimes because the evidence looks substantial, but in the end it turns out they did nothing wrong.

Also, our definition of terrorists, and the govt's definition of a terrorist is very different. We view groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.. as terrorists.

The govt, views the following as terrorist

-Individuals who are reverent of individual liberty
-Suspicious of centralized Fed. authority
-those who believe there is a grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty
-Those who believe their way of life is under attack
-anti-global

[TheRealVille]

Not to my knowledge, but President Transparency has proven to be a master of the political cover-up. Who knows what Obama's minions have done in the past four years? What Rand Paul did was force the Obama administration go on record supporting a basic constitutional right that we have as Americans - and it only took him 13 hours to get a straight answer. That is a record of which any Kentuckian should be proud.

If more people in Congress had Rand Paul's courage, we would have had answers about what happened in the Fast and Furious and Benghazi scandals before the election. Obama's election marked the death of political and criminal accountability in Washington.

FTR, I see no use in the drone program.

[Hoot Gibson]

How is this relevant, the drone program is new when it comes to deploying it in American skies, and is not even in full effect.

Personally I don't think it's worth the money to keep hundreds/thousands of drones in the skies at all times.

What exactly is it you think these drones will prevent/solve, that can't be done with other law enforcement assets?

The drone program is going to be the "enforcement" arm for the Patriot Act/NDAA. Two pieces of legislation that completely shred the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. That gives the Fed. govt the authority to brand someone a terrorist and carry out a kill order, completely ignoring the rights of that American citizen.

As I stated our intelligence agencies do a lot of great things, but they are not perfect, far from it in fact.

Even Hoot, in a post above, shows me exactly what is wrong with these types of programs when he stated something along the lines of "if an American citizen is overseas and walking along with a group of "suspected" terrorists and is killed"

Being suspected of crime does not make you guilty, we imprison people all the time for extremely long periods of time for things that turn out eventually to be innocent of, let alone the people who are accused of crimes because the evidence looks substantial, but in the end it turns out they did nothing wrong.

Also, our definition of terrorists, and the govt's definition of a terrorist is very different. We view groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.. as terrorists.

The govt, views the following as terrorist

-Individuals who are reverent of individual liberty
-Suspicious of centralized Fed. authority
-those who believe there is a grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty
-Those who believe their way of life is under attack
-anti-global

Thank you for a couple of excellent posts on this subject, Beetle. However, IMO, Americans on foreign soil have no constitutional rights and that is a distinction that I believe matters. It is often not possible to apprehend traitors who are actively and openly working for our enemies against this countries national security interests and bring them to justice. That is a proper application of drone attacks, IMO.

That said, targeting American citizens with drones on foreign soil could turn into a very slippery slope if the current trend of refusing to hold politicians in Washington accountable for crimes continues unabated. The deployment of drones against American citizens, even attacks in which Americans are suspected of being in the company of our worst enemies, should be subject to review by civilians in Congress.

Just because Americans living and travelling abroad do not enjoy full constitutional rights does not mean that the deaths of American civilians on foreign soil should be taken lightly.

Beetle, the reality is that whether or not the U.S. uses drones for targeted assassinations during war, other nations will. National security is all about maintaining a competitive edge over our enemies and that requires our government to use drones over foreign soil.

[Beetle01]

Hoot, I have no problem with the use of drones over foreign soil or on foreigners, I do have a problem with issuing kill orders on American citizens, even if they are suspected of being involved in with terrorist organizations.

It's not like these decisions are made in a day, usually for months or years we track and gather information on terrorists, if the information is so overwhelming, why is that we are unable to bring that information up before a Federal judge? If the judge feels that the evidence provided is sufficient he can issue a warrant for the capturing or killing of the individual. Our system is far from perfect, and there is no "perfect" system, but I don't think just tossing the Constitution out the window is the best route. This used to be done all the time, when warrants were issued for gangs roaming the old west, Marshalls or other LE agents would either attempt to capture or kill that individual. Same principle. I think if we follow that standard when it comes to dealing with Americans on foreign soil thought to be involved in terrorist activity, it makes for a good middle ground most can agree is suitable. We can still eliminate potential threats, while still protecting our rights and way of life. (Which is the whole point of all this military activity)

I also don't want to get away from the discussion of the use of drones in American skies, on American citizens. There is not one instance where this should be done, that other military/LE assets would not be capable of doing the same thing.

Since we know that drones are not capable of performing LE duties any better than current assets (other than surveillance, which requires a warrant and I am okay with), I ask those who favor this program to tell me what purpose could they possibly be serving?

[Hoot Gibson]

FTR, I see no use in the drone program.

FTR, I saw no water boarding during the Bush administration - but we know that it happened because the Bush administration testified to Congressional committees and disclosed its use. Neither of us can say for certain whether drones have been used legally or illegally on American soil because the Obama administration has resisted Congressional oversight on a wide array of covert operations.

If you meant that you see no need to use drones on American soil, then I agree except I could probably support very limited use with a court order. I could even support their use in an extreme national emergency, provided that the president was required to explain to Congress and the American people why drone use was authorized - and not six months later. Law enforcement has no need for drones - especially without court orders.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, I have no problem with the use of drones over foreign soil or on foreigners, I do have a problem with issuing kill orders on American citizens, even if they are suspected of being involved in with terrorist organizations.

It's not like these decisions are made in a day, usually for months or years we track and gather information on terrorists, if the information is so overwhelming, why is that we are unable to bring that information up before a Federal judge? If the judge feels that the evidence provided is sufficient he can issue a warrant for the capturing or killing of the individual. Our system is far from perfect, and there is no "perfect" system, but I don't think just tossing the Constitution out the window is the best route. This used to be done all the time, when warrants were issued for gangs roaming the old west, Marshalls or other LE agents would either attempt to capture or kill that individual. Same principle. I think if we follow that standard when it comes to dealing with Americans on foreign soil thought to be involved in terrorist activity, it makes for a good middle ground most can agree is suitable. We can still eliminate potential threats, while still protecting our rights and way of life. (Which is the whole point of all this military activity)

I also don't want to get away from the discussion of the use of drones in American skies, on American citizens. There is not one instance where this should be done, that other military/LE assets would not be capable of doing the same thing.

Since we know that drones are not capable of performing LE duties any better than current assets (other than surveillance, which requires a warrant and I am okay with), I ask those who favor this program to tell me what purpose could they possibly be serving?

I think that we agree on this issue much more than we disagree. However, if you are saying that a court order should be obtained prior to deploying drones on foreign soil, then I strongly disagree because American courts have no jurisdiction outside of American territory. Limited drone use in lawless countries like Yemen falls under the power that the executive branch, IMO.

As for Americans killed on foreign soil by drones, while it is true that terrorists are often hunted and monitored for weeks or months before a drone strike is ordered, it is not practical and it is not necessary to identify everybody in a terrorist's entourage. Our State Department needs to warn American citizens about the danger of openly associating with suspected terrorists in unfriendly nations. If some Americans choose to ignore such good advice, then they should be prepared to accept the consequences of being judged by the company that they keep.

[TheRealThing]

I think the logical and legal divide falls along the lines of military actions, which are intended to keep the peace and protect the citizens of this land when the soveregnty of other nations is involved and civil actions, (in country) for which, we have literally millions of trained law enforcement officials who can operate unfettered by the constraints of the other nation's sovereign rights.

I trust the checks and balances that exist between the federal government and the US Armed Services to adequately and morally identify threats from without and, then deal to what ever extent they deem necessary with those threats. Actually, we err on the side of caution way more than the other way around IMO. None the less, legislators would all do well to grow a pair ala Rand Paul, and abandon all the partisan wagon circling, and think for themselves for a change. Admittedly, most would have to be taught how that process works, because most of them go up to the Hill and immediately get conscripted by their party leaders and are told to vote in lock step with party leadeship. In this way, actually representing the people gets thrown over, to instead represent the much narrowed interests of the partisan politics of their base, while abandoning the majority or recataloging them as mere 'rich sheep' to be shorn in the name of socialism.

Because the dems have unfortunately espoused special interest groups to form a majority base, their idea of a representative form of government only represents the small minded agendas of the coalition groups who form the voting base of their party. For the dems that means gay rights, abortion rights, environmental hysteria, gun control, and other social justice issues, and an adherence to the principles of Keynesian economics. (The odd man out is labor, who are constantly used by clever politicians as a cash cow, or if they need a readily mobile force to go stage a protest somewhere).

For the republicans, that means being maligned as the evil money hoarding elite, that want to deny or at least slow the flow of would be gravy train riders. And represent, for the most part, conservativism, the Christian right, strong defense, and adherence to the constitution and traditional fiscal policy.

This demonstrates how easy it is to go overboard with one's ability to decide what is right and wrong. Today it's the possibility of drones overhead. Tomorrow, well the sky will be the limit if government gets it in their head they are the moral authority in this country while abandoning God's clearly provided guidance in that area.

[Beetle01]

I think that we agree on this issue much more than we disagree. However, if you are saying that a court order should be obtained prior to deploying drones on foreign soil, then I strongly disagree because American courts have no jurisdiction outside of American territory. Limited drone use in lawless countries like Yemen falls under the power that the executive branch, IMO.

As for Americans killed on foreign soil by drones, while it is true that terrorists are often hunted and monitored for weeks or months before a drone strike is ordered, it is not practical and it is not necessary to identify everybody in a terrorist's entourage. Our State Department needs to warn American citizens about the danger of openly associating with suspected terrorists in unfriendly nations. If some Americans choose to ignore such good advice, then they should be prepared to accept the consequences of being judged by the company that they keep.

I think you may be misunderstanding me a little bit, but yes I think we do agree mostly. I have no problem deploying drones, or using those drones to strike foreigners, and if we identify and attack a foreign terrorist with a drone and an American is killed while in that entourage, then that is their fault. I am also not saying we need a warrant to deploy drones in foreign territory or strike foreign terrorists.

What I am saying, is that if an American citizen is the PRIMARY target of a drone strike, then that citizen is guaranteed certain rights. That is where I believe obtaining the capture/kill warrant is necessary. If they obtain that warrant, and the American is in a foreign territory and unable to be captured for interrogation and trial, then I am okay with using a drone strike.

I am not okay with launching drone strikes on American citizens as the primary target by the order of one person (President or other) based only on circumstantial intelligence and information, without going through the proper legal channels (checks and balances). If the evidence is so overwhelming that the military and intelligence agencies feel a drone strike is needed, then obtaining that warrant should be doable. This helps protect Americans rights, as well as putting some form of accountability in place.

[Beetle01]

I think the logical and legal divide falls along the lines of military actions, which are intended to keep the peace and protect the citizens of this land when the soveregnty of other nations is involved and civil actions, (in country) for which, we have literally millions of trained law enforcement officials who can operate unfettered by the constraints of the other nation's sovereign rights.

I trust the checks and balances that exist between the federal government and the US Armed Services to adequately and morally identify threats from without and, then deal to what ever extent they deem necessary with those threats. Actually, we err on the side of caution way more than the other way around IMO. None the less, legislators would all do well to grow a pair ala Rand Paul, and abandon all the partisan wagon circling, and think for themselves for a change. Admittedly, most would have to be taught how that process works, because most of them go up to the Hill and immediately get conscripted by their party leaders and are told to vote in lock step with party leadeship. In this way, actually representing the people gets thrown over, to instead represent the much narrowed interests of the partisan politics of their base, while abandoning the majority or recataloging them as mere 'rich sheep' to be shorn in the name of socialism.

Because the dems have unfortunately espoused special interest groups to form a majority base, their idea of a representative form of government only represents the small minded agendas of the coalition groups who form the voting base of their party. For the dems that means gay rights, abortion rights, environmental hysteria, gun control, and other social justice issues, and an adherence to the principles of Keynesian economics. (The odd man out is labor, who are constantly used by clever politicians as a cash cow, or if they need a readily mobile force to go stage a protest somewhere).

For the republicans, that means being maligned as the evil money hoarding elite, that want to deny or at least slow the flow of would be gravy train riders. And represent, for the most part, conservativism, the Christian right, strong defense, and adherence to the constitution and traditional fiscal policy.

For fear of getting off topic, as a conservative and Republican, that is not what the party is about anymore. They are just as guilty of shredding the constitution as the Dems. They are just as guilty as the Dems of backing the interests of their financial donors and corporate sponsors. They are just as guilty of overspending as the Dems. The two parties just go about it in different ways. Today's Republican party is far from conservative.