national

Possibly the only thing Rand Paul and I agree on. Gates is also absolutely right; no administration should have the first and last word on drone strikes. Obama's team should quickly embrace independent oversight of the drone program.

These drone strikes have been found to kill civilians 90 to 95% of the time. And striking first responders and funerals is a policy Stalin would have approved. Barak Obama has no respect for the rule of law or the impoverished people he murders with impunity.

Tmuel show me a stat sheet with 90-95 percent of the time. sounds wonderful, but in the end, that fact that any American with a voluntarily action of joining a confirmed terrorist group at that point ends his/her ability to be afforded the luxuries or rights of a American citizen. in the end, who cares who watches the program, obama is right to support killing someone who would kill you and me and our families, and if he or she happened to be American then how silly would you feel to find out that your loved one was killed but obama didn't take em out because he was from California but moved to Pakistan. ugh silly people, choice is choice and to join a terrorist group is a CHOICE.

I am concerned about the backlash on this flash point and here's why. First, I respect the opinions of the previous posts, but I will raise a few questions for you. If an American walks in the shoes of a terrorist organization, that person should be immune from a strike? As for collateral damage, all I need to do is show you a picture of the world trade center burning and falling and if that is not appalling enough, let's look at pictures of the families of those killed. Would you prefer we put more troops on the ground, to pursue these terrorists the old fashioned way, risking IEDs? Visit a military or veteran's hospital and let me know what you would like to argue about after that experience. And as far as who gives the final command, are you sure you want a whole bunch of people involved? Can you imagine a target being identified and the guy at the controls needs the approval of five different people. If you don't like this, or collateral damage, there is a solution. Bring our troops home, secure our borders, and be vigilant. The problem that I see are the countries that sponsor the terrorist groups, and those countries should be held responsible if the militants they tolerate, attack any U.S. interest. Teddy was right... Walk softly and carry a big stick.

And a final thought; any time you see the enemy complaining about a weapon system used by the USA, then that ought to be a message loud and clear. I don't know what is worse, the terrorists condemning this, or our own citizens condemning this. If you don't like it, and want to avoid this policy completely, bring our troops home.

Finally, I wonder what would have happened if some of you had been alive during World War II when the carpet bombing began? Would you be complaining about collateral damage and civilians killed then?

So this is what Obama prefers to waterboarding?

I have no problem if they kill Americans who have willing joined a terrorist group. However, I don't think one man should have the final say on who gets killed. They need some type of oversight on this.

but in the end, that fact that any American with a voluntarily action of joining a confirmed terrorist group at that point ends his/her ability to be afforded the luxuries or rights of a American citizen. ************ No it doesn't, they are still Americans and guaranteed their rights under the law.

Since the legal sophists who drafted the Administration's murder memo use the open-ended legislative authorization for military force against terrorists to defend their so-called logic, perhaps the Senators could, I dunno, man up and put some of their own restrictions on what the executive branch can and cannot do. Meaningful independent review of drone strikes would be a good first step.