Drones: Do I have a line in the sand?

[Demo_Chris]

79. Thanks for responding (more below)

I am going to address this in pieces. Your comments (respectfully editted for length) are in BOLD:

I recall reading someplace, " while liberals get bogged down debating the nuanses of complex issues, republicans are at work creating new bumper sticker slogans". The point being that for people looking at strength on national security, we liberals always end up sounding like wimps too caught up in namby-pamby minutia, too much so for most folks.

That's a great quote, and there is no doubt some truth to it, but on the whole it is a misrepresentation. Most liberal issues, including this one, can easily be distilled down to a bumper sticker or sound bite. For example:

Dear Government, stop shooting drones at us!

or...

Drones shouldn't fly above the LAW!

But it's true, liberals tend to think and discuss the issues beyond these simplistic responses. We do tend to look deeper, and if it waters down our slogans that's only because we understand that real life issues are complicated. But then, isn't that what you are doing here?

All this bitching about the horrors of killing Americans makes me sick, someone colluding with others to plot against you and your family, willing to kill you, but oh no, we can't kill them ... who will you send to capture them, or is it a matter that you don't trus the intel ? If you don't trust the intelligence what then, sit around haggling, debating, second-guessing ?

I will keep this short as I have answered this at greater length in previous posts in this thread. There are several problems with this argument.

People are always plotting to kill us. I know this both because the government tells me so, and because every now and again these people succeed and some of us get killed. Given this, and knowing that nothing we do will stop all of them, the discussion moves to dealing with this problem. There is always a cost in dollars and liberty, and we must weight those costs against the danger.

I have done so and arrived at my own conclusions. I believe that the danger is not worth this radical cost. Or, in bumper sticker terms:

"Hey Terrorists, stop taking our jobs!" -- US Government

In short, you believe that in order to stop people on the other side of the world from killing Americans, the US Government needs the power to kill any and as many Americans as they see fit.

I was against the Vietnam war, when I was drafted I studied the Conscientious Objectors handbook, I wasn't killing anyone, there were no college deferments left in 1969, my draft year, Dick Cheney and his gang got em all. I was against the first Gulf War, daddy Bush's big lie, I'm against wars period, yeah I know ... "if that's true, how can you defend drone strikes ?". I have the luxury, like you, to sit here and play arm-chair quarterback, none of us is shouldering the responsibility of protecting the entire United States IN REAL TIME, but some of us seem wrapped up in a utopian ideal.

I believe that the government is NEVER above the law. I don't believe it's okay for the police to beat suspects or kick in doors without a warrant, even if they are protecting me from the bad guys. In my mind they become the bad guys when they do this. But here we are talking about a whole new level. Not kicking in doors or kicking some "punk" ass, we are talking about the government killing it's own people. Anytime, anywhere, and anyone that they decide -- in secret.

What then is your option, more "boots on the ground", another round of covert CIA assassin squads, sit around the campfire with people who vow to kill you and talk, hoping to change their minds ? You offer nothing but complaints without options, that's what pisses me off, and that's what helps make our side seem limp and feckless on such matters.

There is no perfect solution, if the responsibility calls for protecting the citizens of this country you will have to balance between not having a margin for error and taking steps that might push the envelope, you think you'd come up with something better ?

I start with the position that no actual solution is possible. At best we can perhaps stop some of these people. We cannot even stop our own kids from slaughtering their classmates and teachers. Hell, we cannot keep weapons and drugs out of prisons. So no, a solution that eliminates the problem is impossible. We both no doubt agree on this. Where we differ is in what we propose to do about it.

Your answer is to go all in. ALL IN. In order to slow these terrorists we must abandon even the most basic constitutional and rational protections. Understand, hyperbole is no longer possible here. There is no next step or slippery slope. You are arguing that we need to allow secret government agencies, with no oversight, no judicial review, no due process, no chance to offer a defense, no warning, no surrender, and no questions, the authority to secretly KILL any Americans they want.

Again, hyperbole is impossible here. There is literally nothing left for you to surrender. Once you grant the right to kill at will, laws no longer apply. Rights no longer apply. It's ALL legal when you work for Uncle Bundy. You want to replace legal protections against government power and excess with nothing more concrete than political cost. You want to replace "Don't kill that guy, it's illegal!" with "Don't blow away that schoolbus, it might cost us votes!"

And why? What's your explanation and excuse for the greatest betrayal possible? What JUSTIFIES this insanity in your mind?

YOU ARE SCARED.

That's it. That's all there is. Well screw that. If you're that scared go buy a fucking gun and dig a bunker, but don't demand that the rest of us abandon our constitution, our sanity, and our kids fucking future just so you can feel safe from the terrorist boogiemen.

Nuff said, and thanks for reading and taking the time to respond.