Comments about ‘Lawmakers consider regulating drone strikes’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 8 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Anwar al-Awlaki had ties to at least three attacks planned or carried out on U.S. soil. They included the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting that claimed 13 lives in 2009, a failed attempt to down a Detroit-bound airliner the same year and a thwarted plot to bomb cargo planes in 2010."

I find it odd that so many on the right are suddenly against targeting terrorists (American or not) who are engaged in killing Americans.

Quite the switch. Purely partisan motives perhaps?

AZnewser
Snowflake, AZ

I find it odd that so many on the left find "enhanced interrogation techniques" reprehensible, but applaud dropping missiles unannounced from the sky, which inevitably causes collateral damage.

Drone strikes were widely criticized when President Bush was authorizing them.

Quite the switch. Purely partisan motives perhaps?

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@AZnewser
actually I am not sure joeblow is necessarily representative of those of us "on the left" while I think most would agree that torture is wrong, if you slow down and read the article you will see that all the congressmen and senators that are calling for more oversight and transparency in the story are democrats not republicans. I for one think there needs to be clear oversight and where possible more transparency.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Anyone against drones...

please see your nearest Army recruiter.

Dont Tread
Iron County, UT

This is the reason why me personally, an individual on the right, am against Pres. Obama's drone strikes on US citizens while under Pres. Bush I would have supported them.
The Constitution guarantees the due process of all citizens, a right which can only be waived under specific circumstances. One such circumstance is participation in open warfare against the US. Under Pres. Bush this country was waging a War on Terror resulting from the 9/11 attack that led our country into conflict with terrorists across the world, from Somalia to the Philippines, with main Theaters of War eventually developing in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this time, any active affiliates with terrorists could be considered an active participant in war against America and their right to due process could be waived and they could be targeted. Under Pres. Obama, this country is waging regional wars with no admitted connection and the term War on Terror is not uttered, the conflict is not seen as a worldwide fight. Legally, Pres. Obama should not be able to waive due process in areas where we are not in conflict, since he does not consider this a War on Terror.

VST
Bountiful, UT

Actually I am not sure JoeBlow is accurately describing those of us "on the right" when he states that "…we are suddenly against targeting terrorists (American or not) who are engaged in killing Americans."

So, in addition to Tolstoy's apprehension, is JoeBlow just out there all alone "blowing in the wind?"

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Dont Tread,

As a point of reference, during the Civil War, the soldiers/sailors of the Confederate Army and Navy were still U.S. citizens regardless of the declared succession of eleven States. And please note there was no Congressional Declaration of War made against the Confederacy. Also the Confederacy did not declare war against the United States – they just started shooting at Fort Sumter.

Therefore let me ask you this question.

Were those Confederate combatants denied their right of "due process of law" under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution when they were killed? Certainly, no charges were filed, no indictment served, and no trial held before they were killed.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"So, in addition to Tolstoy's apprehension, is JoeBlow just out there all alone "blowing in the wind?"

Maybe not all alone, but in a minority.

I think targeted drone strikes are far more desirable than all out ground war. I wish we had taken out Hussein that way. I have no problem killing anyone who is actively engaged in terror against the US. Makes no difference if they are US citizens or not.

I find that the problems with this country are caused mostly by Democrats and Republicans.

I find that the huge deficit in this country is caused pretty equally by Democrats and Republicans.

Electing either R or D is not an answer to our problems as both tend to govern in fairly similar manners.

Being an independent who can see both good and bad things done by politicians on both sides does put me in a minority.

Both Bush and Obama are good decent American who want the best for their country.

So, is that considered "blowing in the wind"?

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

Just to clarify I am not against drone attacks but I do support clear oversight and as much transparency as possible. I believe we have the same right to take out a terrorist (citizen or not) as we do a violent criminal here in the US that posses a serious threat to life is in a posture that does not allow the safe apprehension of them and is refusing to give themselves up. Torture on the other hand is arcane to torturing an alleged bank robber that is already in police custody because he may or may not have information about a future potentially violent bank robbery. Not really the same thing.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@JoeBlow,

Initially, in your first post, you were indeed "blowing in the wind" when you clearly stated that "…I find it odd that so many on the right are suddenly against targeting terrorists (American or not) who are engaged in killing Americans."

I personally sense there are very, very, few of those on the right (including me) who are against targeting terrorists (including Americans) who are engaged in killing Americans. I also agree with Senator Fienstein and "Tolstoy" that there needs to be a more transparent an identifiable process in determining who is to be targeted.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments