Best
121 Comments
Post
  • #43
    !
    @dances-weebles Mormons w/machine guns killing indiscriminately, not even close. Chicago democrat killing people he doesn't like, now that's believable! Where's Jimmy Carter's outrage!? Guess politics is thicker than morals. Hey, do you think Rush is on his list?
  • #53
    !
    No, it is not. No one person should have the power to decide to have a person killed. Due process? Did the executive branch forget that?
    Even in war the military follows rules of engagement and escalation of force procedures.
  • R Load more replies

  • #48
    !
    Yes - these drone strikes have killed off many threats to the US that would have otherwise been free to harm America or would have had to have been taken out by US soldiers on the ground. This would have led to more US losses. These strikes are used in areas where it would be hard or impossible for US troops to operate because the local populations hate the USA. I have no problems with collateral damage to the civilians in these areas as long as it saves US lives. That being said there should be a formalized list of rules that are followed prior to using the drones. But the President should have the authority to override the rules should he need to.
  • #54
    !
    @PNWest Says the guy whose avatar is a peace sign. I'm all for saving US troops, but we still have due process. If someone is on that list, they should have a trail and found guilty, and sentenced. I am curious as to what kind of vetting process it takes to make it on the kill list.
  • #58
    !
    @wild_turkey6 I am in favor of protecting as many American lives as possible. Whether you agree with it or not there is not going to be due process in a war zone. Personally I am very happy that Osama bin Laden had his brains spilled all over the floor of his hideout in Abbottabad instead of being brought to trial. I don't want to see American lives put at risk on the ground unless absolutely necessary. These drone strikes have made being the longevity of number 2 guy in al Qaeda shorter than that of a moderate republican and I am all for that.
  • R Load more replies

  • #57
    !
    Really, right. In 2008, he ran on no torture and closing Gitmo and giving enemy combatants the right to a civil trial. I'm OK with that, as it is part of our heritage of taking life, liberty, and property only in the case of due process. But 4 years later, Gitmo is still in business and he has a kill list. Has a judge or jury had any say in this?
  • #20
    !
    diplomacy with fire from above as a backup. it works well.

    he has kept a divided nation with nuclear weapons from falling into te hhands of some really radical religious whackjobs. that makes for a peaceful world, yes?
  • #26
    !
    2500 people killed by drones... and ALL of them were on the Kill List? ALL of them were terrorists? Dear Pres. Obama: Our Constitution calls such lists "letters of marques" and they set a bounty on the heads of international criminals. Anyone can take out a targeted bad guy and their country can benefit from the bounty paid. Can we please start doing things the way our Constitution dictates? Or do we have to continue to work outside the Constitution "in the name of national security"? You were sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution. "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home" --James Madison
  • #35
    !
    i believe the military also uses the fdrones to kill people on the battlefield. they are not just used to target and kill terrorists hhding out in remote villaes and such.
  • #17
    !
    I don't mind a "kill list" of terrorists who want to blow up Americans, and I actually find it okay that the President personally approves each name on the list (personal responsibility, anyone?) But the current lack of Congressional oversight is troubling.

    As Mike Lyons has suggested, let's limit the CIA drone program to surveillance only and leave launching Hellfire missiles to the military. That way the Congress would be able to exercise its war powers obligations and reduce the discretionary powers of the Executive branch.
  • #16
    !
    It would be helpful if, before comments are made, people would read the source to which the storiy refers...

    "The attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted killing began last summer after news reports on the drone program, started under President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama, revealed some details of the president’s role in the shifting procedures for compiling “kill lists” and approving strikes. Though national security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the president and top aides believe it should be institutionalized, a course of action that seemed particularly urgent when it appeared that Mitt Romney might win the presidency."

    Given a new president's need to get up to speed as fast as possible, I don't see why this doesn't make good sense.
  • #5
    !
    Geez! What would have been the point? Romney could have changed the rule book. The President in 2016, 2020, and on and on and on could change a rule book.
  • #90
    !
    What rules people? The government can't even follow the rules of law set out by the Constitution for the governance of it's own people. You know the document they swear to up hold and then discard when it becomes an obstacle to there power.
  • #89
    !
    Obama is a Dictator. He would not have to worry about Romney, the kill list would not be an issue. Only Obama the self-proclaimed "chosen one" is above the law.
  • #88
    !
    No. This is pushing the power of the President. Then he didn't want it to fall in the hands of Mitt. That tells me he knows it is not in his power to really do this. It sounds against the Constitution. Let's send it to the supreme court and let them make a ruling on it.
  • #85
    !
    wow....killing terroists.....there is a rule book for that? Do remember there being a rule book when the flew the planes into the Twin Towers or the Pentagon.
  • #84
    !
    Nah, doesn't matter. Obama will do whatever he chooses. No matter what.
    Argue all you want to about who is suppose to do what. When it comes down to it. Obama will do as he pleases. Just a little thing as executive order.
  • #78
    !
    Sure within that 2500 is mostly innocent women and children and knowing that I could die any day from a drone attack would probably drive them crazy enough to join in acts of terrorism
  • #109
    !
    @dkpayton like it was said in the debates we can't kill our way out of this. It sucks I ain't like downplaying what happened 9/11. But America is better than that to be slaugthering their people to let's not stoop down to their level they are already winning by America policing the world
  • #110
    !
    @akjep6 i say lets of keep right on doing like we are doing. if they get tired of there people dying maybe they will get off there butts and do something to help get the terrorists out of there.
  • #113
    !
    @dkpayton Has not worked yet. What has happened is that they would rather be oppressed and they join the terrorist cause were doing worse things to them by killing them. Go look at our approval rating from these people before we started drone warfare and look at it now after. Do you really not understand or see it as a possibility that by us killing innocent citizens makes us not look so appealing and great to these citizens and give them incentive to join the people who actually do hate us?
  • #120
    !
    @Libertyiskey do you not understand that if we dont use drones we will have to send troops in to do the job. do you not remenber them dancing in the streets over there when the towers fell. i do ... if they want to join the people that hate us fine . send two drones instead of one...
  • R Load more replies

  • #73
    !
    "Will the "rule book" address your concerns over the kill list?" Depends on the rules, doesn't it? As it is, the CinC decides upon targets and I assume does so when opportunity presents itself regarding someone on the list. If they change the rules, who will be making those decisions? This article is far too vague to answer any real questions on the issue of drone strikes.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #55
    !
    I think the person should be given the opportunity to turn themselves in and be put on trial or depending on the circumstances to put in a plea deal in exchange for information. But that's it. If they don't do that they should be fair game. Drone strikes are better than putting troops in harms way.
  • R Load more comments...
Post