Leaving it as a Presidential power that continues to carry a high political cost

--- or ----

Institutionalizing America's "right" to violate the sovereignty and human rights of any nation/person we deem an enemy.

We don't need a special court in order to act as a check against drone use, we simply need to end the use of drones, now.

And the President does not have any authority what so ever to act as Judge.

Creepy, isn't it, how the terms of the conversation get shifted so quickly...

than special forces black ops or outright invasions?

The simple fact is that our current drone policy is illegal under both domestic and international law.

However, for your edification, our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan violated international law as well.

Face the fact, for being such a law abiding nation, we sure as hell violate a lot of laws.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were wrong. Given that, why are drones any worse than invasions and use of covert forces?

an oxymoron if I ever heard one, obviously need to evolve to consider the existence of drones. Again, I don't see them as fundamentally different from any other act of war where one country invades another for a military purpose.

Jeremy Scahill says that they are more significant than the drone strikes and of course totally ingored. He has a movie about it coming out in the summer called Dirty Wars.

is as committed as the last one to making sure that we take the fight to the terrorists where they are, rather than letting them take it to us in the United States. If he did not, his would be a failed Presidency.