In response to:

The Drone Debate: A Matter of Trust

John2038 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 8:58 AM
Sorry but it is statements like this that make me wonder about this wisdome of libertarians. Not "ANYONE" should be "judge, jury and executioner" - really? Not a soldier who is being shot at, or the police officer on patrol, or a military sniper who spots a woman about to toss a bomb into a group of American soldiers, a fighter pilot that "pushes a button" and shoots at another airplane? Really? I don't know what world you live in but it is far from the reality I know. Here I use the concept "trust but verify."
John2038 Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 2:57 PM
Ok just call me obtuse but I am just pointing out that "never" and "not anyone" isn't necessarily always the best choice. Consider a situation where you have a war lord in say Afganastan is apparenrty planning an attack on an Amarican military base. Several sorces indicate this is true. To make it more complex you learn that an American citizen has gone to join the war lord and offer support. aganst the US Military. From looking at the geography and distance you feel sure you wll lose men if you send a force in to try and capture the man. So now do you send a unit in to capture him or use a drone? Send some of your men out to die or "push a button" without a "fair trial?" Of course, the war lord hasn't done anything . yet.
Jeff_Georgia Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 10:24 AM
A battlefield situation, with the enemy shooting at you is hardly the same. Are you being deliberately obtuse, J2? Or are you really obtuse?
Texas Chris Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 9:51 AM
In every one of those situations, violence has been comitted or is imminent.

Drone strikes on non-coms are NOT. Awlaki was riding in a car, had never killed anyone, and was only accused of saying and writing subversive things... Assassinated. His 16 year old son was at a barbecue... Assassinated.

Bad guys? Sure, maybe. Capture them, have a trial, and put them away if found guilty.
Seawolf Wrote: Mar 08, 2013 9:16 AM
John, WADR,you are missing the concept here...Imminent is one thing, Bush would have made the correct call although a terrible one, had he ordered the shootdown of the plane over Penn, these fools are discussing the deliberate killing of someone deemed to be their enemy after they have ample time to make such a determination and that person is not an imminent threat. No-one ought have that power inside the USA, especially THIS commieclown.

In conversations with those opposed to the notion of drone attacks against U.S. citizens, on or away from American soil, I ask a question as a consistency test:

Is your opposition based on a blanket principle that no President should have such power, or is it a spurred by a mistrust of the current administration?

In many cases I get the first answer, so I know I am engaged with a libertarian mindset, which I always respect and often share. We should always take great pause before empowering government to take bold action unilaterally that could result in loss of life...