Best
57 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    I donot support any u.s. drone program. I want the military pared down to what the constitution envisioned, a skelatal force to maintain facilities and a navy, the constitution set it up so that the u.s. lacks the capability of going to war or engaging in mischef without a congressional declaration of war. The way it was set up the u.s. had no
    standing army, only when congress declared war would it then "raise an army" as the constitution contemplates.

    That said, I favor Yoho's proposal over the current arrangement.
  • #2
    !
    @politicalspice wow. people voted that down. well said - we can slim down our bloated military by restoring ourselves to what the Constitution calls for - shocking concept. then perhaps we can work on removing the bloat from all the departments that the Constitution never called for, like DHS, HHS, Education, DOE, HUD, etc.
  • #4
    !
    You do realize our military isn't that big. It's not the size, it's the dollar amount. That is all due to politician greed. All politicians. They all love getting in on military spending. I'm not for reducing the size, but I am for reducing the fraud and waste. That goes for all government expenditures. It's our government that is too large in size, spending and wasting too much to keep itself going.
  • #6
    !
    @gherlone Funny how some people (usually conservatives) raise a big fuss about departure from the Constitution when it comes to HHS, ED, etc., but are eager to depart from it where the War Department is concerned...
  • #8
    !
    @Nemesis3X Not that big? Big enough to lay waste to and commit mass murder to the nations of Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq. The fact that you are not for reducing the size and are spparently comfortable with suppporting mass murder of mostly innocent people, none of whom ever artacked the u.s. is not persuasive to me. I'll stick with the constitution, which was specifically created with an object of controlling politicians who think like you do, regardless of the fact you condem the war mongering politicians whose very actions you make possible by your support for our "not that big" military.
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    !
    It's more constitutional for military actions to be put under the supervision of public officials. Yoho is making a good move and represents both sides of the drone matter well. That's what good leadership is about.
  • #19
    !
    As far as armed drones go. I still think the CIA should have some unarmed drones for intelligence gathering which is their job but if it comes down to a strike against a target let the Military handle it.
  • #53
    !
    @freelancehobo

    I do believe Ray McGovern is reliable, I have communicated with him. Jesse Ventura was never a SEAL. Your links are quite interesting. I always thought Linda Tripp's job at the Pentagon was a cover to get rid of her. I never considered the other side.

    I bookmarked your links.
  • #36
    !
    Hell, finally a republican I can agree with, about something.

    Killing should be done only under an open basis. When secret agencies get to kill people we have the start of a star chamber, and the beginning of the end of freedom.
  • #34
    !
    I don't mind the CIA having drones since they operate outside of the US. I also think that the CIA being able to quickly identify a target and get a bird in the air is a good think. While I see why someone may be concerned, I think this is a useful tool in the world of terrorists we live in today.
  • #45
    !
    @BobFromDist9 The CIA possesses different resources and capabilities, able to operate in an active war as well as non-war zones. The military intelligence will not be active in a non-war zone. The question of legality under current laws is a grey area open to many interpretations. So I still believe that the use of drones for the CIA should be allowed for the flexibility of their mission.
  • #55
    !
    @WoodyKC

    The CIA is supposed to supply intel to the military.

    Recon drones are not in question. Killing should be the military's job.
  • #32
    !
    Wow, Ted Yoho of all people coming up with a good idea. Surprising enough for ANY member of Congress to do that, but really surprising when it's him.
  • #25
    !
    I suppose this qualifies as bi-partisan support...:)
    .
    it's a GOP bill so I would want to see the details...
    .
    but I don't think we should be involved in secert wars with no accountability, ever...
  • #57
    !
    Drones will be needed internally and externally for criminal and national security purposes regardless of who is in control. It seems that the law makers don't really pay attention to the future prospects of use and issues. The DOD makes a better steward over anything that can be used as a weapon. Here, we have a new strategy and we have to design the tactical use. The CIA will use what it needs when it needs it.
  • #40
    !
    You don't assassinate with a missile, you blow things up. Assassination implies concealing the killers identity. Drones kinda limit that.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #27
    !
    An intelligence agency should have little need for such things is country. But, this piece of legislation has as much chance of getting through as I have of hitch hiking to Hawaii.
  • #18
    !
    You cannot separate those that are gathering intelligence via a live feed from a drone from those that push the button to capitalize on that intelligence.
  • #30
    !
    @ctc That would depend upon circumstances. Sometimes having a bit of a delay between receiving a piece of intel and acting upon that intel is a good thing. Granted, sometimes it's not, but quite honestly, I'm not too sure I want a spook who's idea of combat is "Call of Duty" pushing the fire button on a drone from the other side of the globe.
  • #16
    !
    What if a valid target comes into view and you can't attack that Subject because your drone is unarmed. That makes no sense at all to me.
  • #20
    !
    The CIA is not the problem, they are a tool, just like the drones, that are only a problem when there is a corrupt administration, like we have today.
  • #22
    !
    Why don't we just let the CIA die and then we won't have to know what is going on in the world or who is going to hit us next and when will they do it? Why don't we just let give every one we are unavailing prior warning before we strike so they can move away and not get hurt? Why don't we just let our Senators make the decision? Hell they can't even decide to get out the rain until it's long gone out to sea, if they ever decide. But who needs to know? We can be like Ostriches with our head in the sand.
  • #23
    !
    Okay, I'll grant that the title of this article was a little misleading ("Lawmaker Wants Drones Out of CIA's Hands"), but if you read Yoho's comments in the article, it seems to me like he's just saying, "Get the *ARMED* drones out of CIA's hands." I don't necessarily have a problem with CIA flying reconnaissance drones, but an intelligence gathering organization should not be launching Hellfire missiles at wedding parties, for example, to take out a "suspected terrorist" (and 15-20 of his neighbors who just happened to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time).
Post