Skip to main content

View Diary: McCain hates Rand Paul's real filibuster (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Law enforcement and military always (0+ / 0-)

    have a right to force under certain circumstances.

    I can't get what's different about a drone, frankly. If a police officer or soldier is not put in immediate danger in order to stop the situation, it's somehow worse? I get that collateral damage and such should be considered (and whether or not it was illegal, it would be on American soil - should be everywhere - so that makes this more of a silly way to phrase the question anyway).

    I just don't think that "drones" are the actual problem. Who in the government has the right to wage war, what war is, what force that is not war is and who has those powers, what defines combat and what constitutes law enforcement versus military and so forth are all good questions, but whether it's manned or drone, what is the difference?

    •  War on our citizens maybe? n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

      by glitterscale on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:26:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  War on citizens has less to do with the tech used (0+ / 0-)

        and more to do with the laws passed. Again, my point is that it's not about "drones" but about what laws you make and policies you implement to fight global terrorism and where the limits to that should be. To pretend that it's worse when it's a drone than when there's a manned aircraft involved is strange to me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site