In response to:

What Rand Paul Got Right

None1257 Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 1:03 PM
Are we more likely to kill non-combatants, when a grunt is on the ground, and is confronted with someone who they think is the "enemy" or are we more likely to kill non-combatants when you drop a bomb from a drone, on the head of a suspected combatant? When is it a war crime to kill a non-combatant, and when is it not a war crime when you kill a non-combatant?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 1:22 PM
Ever since man invented Artillery it was determined that it was better to kill the enemy from a distance. As the means of delivery improved we can kill from further off with less risk to OUR Forces.

I am wearing a black wrist band with a close friends name on it who died in Afghanistan. I wear it always. I wear it to remember an American killed in combat.

Sometimes only a Grunt can do the job. I was an Infantryman when I first joined the Army But often it is better to kill from afar.

We got Osama up close and personal. But we had better access to his compound then would we would have had to the more heavily fortified compound of Al-Awalki in Yemen. Why take the chance of dropping in an entire Ranger Bat when a drone will do?

Last week, freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) held an old-fashioned filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA. Paul's stated reason for taking to the floor and talking for 13 hours was that the Obama administration wouldn't give him a straight answer on the question of whether the president can unilaterally order the killing of American citizens on American soil with "lethal force, such as a drone strike ... and without trial."

In other words, if an American member of al-Qaeda is sitting at a Starbucks, can the president sic one of his death-dealing robots on him?