the national dialog is being shifted to the right by all the media.
Remember when Social Security was the third rail of politics,well shrub ended that.
Sure his privatization plan went nowhere but it put the whole notion that the program has to be undone on the table.
Now it is considered a negotiation point.

I dont fear drones either but look at where we have come in the last 10 years where any use is not even a thought hardly.
When does the time come that we will fear them?

i am not talking slippery slopes but the fact that once something is accepted as normal the rw will abuse and push it farther.

We are building more distrust again. Not what we should be doing.

"the people in Afghanistan and other countries are worried."

...drones weren't my concern with a Republican President. I'm sure, at the time, the people of Iraq wished we had kicked Bush to the curb. I do think that the drone policy has negative effects, but so do other aspects of U.S. foreign policy related to military actions.

Fear has nothing to do with it. It's just plain wrong, no matter Rep or Dem.

You might not, but the CIA does...I trust them far more in that account, for they know what they speak off.

Well, who doesn't trust the CIA?

The hearing tomorrow will likely blow the door on the drone policy wide open. It should be interesting.

The CIA has issued several warnings, including the use of other state actors of drones. We no longer are the sole (mostly) users of the technology.

The kind of blowback they warn off is an act of war. Technically Pakstani missions are an act of war.

Chew on that.

Yemen we have tacit agreement.

We do not live in a bubble.

I know you have no comeback.

You claimed: "Technically Pakstani missions are an act of war."

Complicity precludes it from being an act of war. Sure, the government could change its mind, but thus far it appears complicit.

Stop doing this, demanded it even.

Sorry.

You defend this. I won't. And yes, I expect drones to be used on conus, they already are, and soon for them to be armed.

Clearly NOT.

This isn't about drones. It's about the memorandum released that reveals the the poor reasoning behind targeted extra-judicial killing of American citizens.

But trying to have a rational discussion with you on this is utterly pointless.

"This isn't about drones. It's about the memorandum released that reveals the the poor reasoning behind targeted extra-judicial killing of American citizens.

But trying to have a rational discussion with you on this is utterly pointless."

It's about drone strikes, the memo, targeted killings. You seem to have convinced yourself that I was making a point about the memo, though it isn't mentioned in the OP.

Future Drones will be capable of killing one person instantly with that person in a cave or hut full of people. I have no concerns about the coming Drones.

corp-state, you will be killed remotely, quietly in your sleep. Now I would believe in that god.

He thought nothing of breaking the law illegally. Giving Nixon the power to legally kill Americans would be his wet dream. All those pesky reporters, dronebait!


Luckily I've received guarantees that a Nixon will never be elected again!

... a phrase that makes my blood run cold every time I think of it. Is not the President subject to the rule of law? If not then we wasted our Revolution, and made a mockery of our founding documents. We might just as well have crowned a king as to have inaugurated a President.

Where does it end? The line must be drawn.

Thanks.

will be fine. They are just as afraid but deal with it thru denial.

"Thanks. Dont be too hard on those that rationalize that this small step toward tyranny will be fine. They are just as afraid but deal with it thru denial. "

...the place is crawling with enough hypocrisy to keep me laughing for years.

I mean, "rationalize" this (make sure to read the responses, they're a hoot in terms of rationalization) :

Remember how FDR executed American Nazi sympathizers?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318400

President Carter investigated FDR's Japanese American Internment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022318948

Not me. I am with you. Give the president carte blanche authority to kill whomever he chooses ("suspects&quot to keep us "safe". The hell will Ben Franklin.

He sure as hell meets the definition via the Patriot Act.

"You are not a communist". You wont care if they kill "suspected" terrorist. You are not a terrorist and probably wont ever be a "suspected" terrorist. As long as you never commit civil disobedience. According to the Patriot Act Martin Luther King Jr. could have been classified as a terrorist. Good for us that J. Edgar didnt have killer drones.

For some, rationalization is the key to happiness and I wouldnt deny them that comfort.

It is a counterproductive tactic that likely will result in a broader based "enemy" and violation of domestic and international law.

The most polite thing to ay about the policy is that it's stupid.

one (and only one) person having the power to decide who lives and who dies, without process, without recourse or appeal, based solely on that person's judgment of who is "good" or "bad". That power is illegitimate, and must not be given to anyone, ever--regardless of party or philosophy. Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot--all of history's "bad guys"--assumed this power unto themselves, and we know the results. We as Americans must be better than that, because WE set the example for the rest of the world.

They've caught many criminals while armed only with cameras.

Good thing you won the parent lottery and were not born in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali, Libya, any other country we feel like killing people in. You are a Good American(TM)!