Last updated on: 4/29/2015 4:27:16 PM PST
Should the United States Continue Its Use of Drone Strikes Abroad?
John McCain, US Senator (R-AZ), stated the following as quoted in an Apr. 27, 2015 article by Rob Garver titled "Hostage Deaths Aside, Support for Drone Strikes Still Strong in DC," available at thefiscaltimes.com:
"We are now facing a new form of warfare with these non-state organizations that are spread all over Hell's half-acre, and really the only way you can get at them that we know of now that’s viable is these drone operations... We're not going to send boots on the ground and that's certainly understandable."
Apr. 27, 2015 - John McCain
Barack Obama, JD, 44th President of the United States of America, said in his May 23, 2013 speech at National Defense University, available at whitehouse.gov:
"[T]he United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones...
To begin with, our actions are effective. Don't take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden's compound, we found that he wrote, 'We could lose the reserves to enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives...' Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives...
Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. And even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists; our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose; our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty.
Remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes. So doing nothing is not an option."
May 23, 2013 - Barack Obama, JD
James E. Cartwright, MA, Harold Brown Chair in Defense Policy Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in his Mar. 24, 2013 testimony "Constitutional and Counter Terrorism Implications of Targeted Killing" to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, available at csis.org:
"Advances in high band-width satellite communications, sensing technologies - particularly full motion video - combined with existing aircraft technology has allowed armed drones to emerge as the platform of choice in this counter terror mission space. In military operations, these drones are highly capable and sought after by ground forces. They cost roughly $4-5M versus a modern fighter’s $150M. They persist on station for 15-20 hours without refueling, versus 1-2 hours for fighter attack aircraft. They consume 100 gallons of fuel per flight versus 1,000-3,000 gallons for an unrefueled fighter attack aircraft. Their optics provides full motion imagery at far greater distances and altitudes than the human eye, and the crews are not distracted or disabled by the constant duties of flight. Their sensor information can be distributed to fixed and mobile users in real time.
Drones offer many advantages over other conventional forces in counter terrorism missions. Basing can be located far from the area of interest without sacrificing time on station. They have far greater mobility than a similar ground or naval capability. Their elevated sensors are generally more effective in locating and pursuing a threat. They can persist in an area for extended periods of time awaiting emergence or a clear opportunity. They can quickly adapt to fixed and mobile targets. These and many other attributes of armed drones make them the leading choice in counter terrorism operations."
Mar. 24, 2013 - James E. Cartwright, MA
John Brennan, MA, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said in a Apr. 30, 2012 speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center, available at wilsoncenter.org:
"[I]n full accordance with the law, and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives, the United States Government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaida terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones...
With the unprecedented ability of remotely piloted aircraft to precisely target a military objective while minimizing collateral damage, one could argue that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to distinguish more effectively between an al-Qaida terrorist and innocent civilians...
In addition, compared against other options, a pilot operating this aircraft remotely, with the benefit of technology and with the safety of distance, might actually have a clearer picture of the target and its surroundings, including the presence of innocent civilians. It’s this surgical precision, the ability, with laser-like focus, to eliminate the cancerous tumor called an al-Qaida terrorist while limiting damage to the tissue around it, that makes this counterterrorism tool so essential."
Apr. 30, 2012 - John Brennan, MA
Martha McSally, MPP, former Fighter Pilot and Drone Squadron Commander in the US Air Force, stated in her Apr. 23, 2013 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, available at lawfareblog.com:
"RPAs provide unprecedented intelligence and strike capability with persistence, precision, and oversight. RPAs can loiter overhead target areas around the clock and provide real-time infrared and electro-optical streaming video while remaining undetected in low threat environments. Once a decision to strike has been made and strike criteria have been met, RPAs provide the ability to have real-time intelligence and oversight with the capability to abort the strike at the last minute if conditions change.
Once a decision has been made that it is legal and wise strategy to conduct a target strike, the RPA platform is usually the hands-down best choice to maximize precisin, persistent intelligence, responsiveness, and oversight by commanders/intelligence/legal experts. It also has the benefit of minimizing civilian casualties at with[out] risk of US. casualties and at relatively low cost."
Apr. 23, 2013 - Martha McSally, MPP
Paddy Ashdown, Former Member of UK Parliament and UN High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, stated in his Feb. 14, 2013 article "If You're Opposed to Drones, Then Think Again" in the Times of London:
"The arguments against them collapse under scrutiny – and they are the most ‘democratic’ weapon ever invented.
A peer who ought to know better said in the House of Lords the other day that the drone was especially dangerous since it 'kills people remotely from some leafy suburb in the middle of one’s own country' — as though this was somehow happening in a garden shed close to you.
But of course it is not. Yes, these decisions are being controlled from thousands of miles away. But is that more thousands of miles away than the decision to send in a stealth fighter? Or give the order to launch a missile from a nearby Special Forces team? Or a Cruise missile from a submarine? And — and here’s the point — thousands of miles from the battlefield is thousands of miles closer to the politicians who have to be accountable.
It is said that every week President Obama sits down with his advisers and personally decides how drones will be used in the week ahead. Can we imagine what that must be like for a democratically elected politician? No taking shelter behind a command chain that reaches right down to the judgment of the poor bloody soldier on the ground. This time the President is personally involved — personally accountable; perhaps even in a way that could, theoretically at least, be open to challenge before an international court of law.
So if we want political accountability for the violent actions of war taken in our name — and presumably we do — then we get more of it, not less, from a decision by a politician to launch a 'smart' bomb from a drone than one taken, for instance by a pilot in a split second, in the heat of conflict, 25,000ft above the battlefield."
Feb. 14, 2013 - Paddy Ashdown
Will Saletan, national correspondent at Slate, said in his Feb. 19, 2013 article "In Defense of Drones" at slate.com:
"Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other military weapon. They're the worst form of warfare in the history of the world, except for all the others...
You can fly them low without fear of losing your life. You can study your target carefully instead of reacting in the heat of the moment. You can watch and guide the missiles all the way down. Even the substitution of missiles for bombs saves lives. Look at the data from Iraq: In incidents that claimed civilian lives, the weapon with the highest body count per incident was suicide bombing. The second most deadly weapon was aerial bombing by coalition forces. By comparison, missile strikes killed fewer than half as many civilians per error.
Drones kill a lower ratio of civilians to combatants than we've seen in any recent war. Granted, many civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other such wars were killed by our enemies rather than by us. But that’s part of the equation. One reason to prefer drones is that when you send troops, fighting breaks out, and the longer the fighting goes on, the more innocent people die. Drones are like laparoscopic surgery: They minimize the entry wound and the risk of infection."
Feb. 19, 2013 - William Saletan
Peter Beaumont, Foreign Affairs Editor at The Guardian and The Observer, states in his Aug. 18, 2012 article "Are Drone Any More Immoral than Other Weapons of War?" at theguardian.com:
"[T]he nature of drone warfare itself has become central. The operators' very remoteness, it is claimed, leads to desensitisation. But throughout the history of weapons, designers have always sought to maximise lethality while reducing the vulnerability of those using the weapons. And while it has long been accepted that there is a relationship between increased distance from a target and the ability to kill with reduced feelings of guilt, recent anecdotal evidence suggests that some drone operators, because they spend so long intimately observing their targets, experience the same emotional damage as those who kill at close quarters.
What then of the issue of international legality? ...[T]his, too, is more complex than some have assumed. The use of force against countries in peacetime... is governed by Article 51 of the UN Charter. This permits 'the right of individual or collective defence' across borders in peacetime if either one of two requirements is satisfied: that the group or individuals being targeted poses a threat or if the country, where the strike takes place, 'consents'. While Pakistan has complained that drone strikes 'infringe its sovereignty', strong evidence exists that suggests it is heavily involved in providing the intelligence and other participation for strikes.
A case can be made too that drones might be 'more ethical' than other older systems because they can be more discriminate, lingering over their target for hours or returning for days to the location, giving those authorising the operations the opportunity to minimise noncombatant casualties."
Aug. 18, 2012 - Peter Beaumont
C. Christine Fair, PhD, Assistant Professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies, stated in her Jan. 29, 2013 article "For Now, Drones Are the Best Option" at nytimes.com:
"[W]e can conclude for several reasons that drones are the best alternative, once the United States... decides that a person is to be killed.
The tribal areas are governed by the colonial-era Frontier Crimes Regulation rather than Pakistan’s constitution. Because of this, there are no police forces in the area, but rather militias, paramilitary and military forces. Americans could not therefore detain suspects without ground operations.
Alternatives are more deadly and devastating: Pakistani military operations, which are not precise and have displaced up to 4 million people, devastate infrastructure and displace whole communities.
And while Pakistan helps the United States in some operations it undermines the United States in others. For this reason, the United States cannot simply outsource such an assignment to Pakistan because there have been too many cases where the Pakistanis have alerted the targets in advance.
Drones may not be the desirable, but they are the best option at least in the tribal areas."
Jan. 29, 2013 - C. Christine Fair, PhD
Philip Mudd, MA, Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation and George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute, stated in his Aug. 3, 2012 article "The Limits of Drone Warfare" at thedailybeast.com:
"In warzones, drones are another tool to eliminate this [terrorist group] leadership. Like bullets from rifled weapons that are more accurate for sniper killings than mini-balls from muskets; like tanks that pack more firepower than infantry; like advances in aircraft that proved so devastating against German cities during World War II. Drones, too, are another advance in the way we can strike an adversary with lethal force, a more surgical, high-tech way to kill an enemy in a warzone, but another weapon in the machine of war nonetheless.
Questions about the ethics of drones, in warzones, would seem misdirected. We have a common understanding, rules of war, for battlefields. If you hear an adversary’s voice on a radio and fire a piece of artillery against that position, you have acted within the rules of warfare. If you strike with a drone, the delivery tool is different, but the target and result are the same. It often appears that our focus on drones stems more from fascination with new technology than with any real distinction between what a drone is designed to do—eliminate the enemy—and what a conventional airstrike would accomplish."
Aug. 3, 2012 - Philip Mudd, MA
Avery Plaw, PhD, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, stated in his Nov. 14, 2012 article "Drones Save Lives, American and Other" at nytimes.com:
"[M]y best judgment is that from the U.S. perspective, drone strikes have done more good than harm and should be continued...
One point in favor of drone strikes is that they are weakening Al Qaeda, the Taliban and affiliated groups, and hence protecting lives, American and other. Also, there don’t seem to be better means of doing so...
First, states have a primary responsibility for the protection of their own citizens. If drone strikes are the best way to remove an all-too-real threat to American lives, then that is an especially weighty consideration.
Second, I doubt that ending drone strikes would substantially reduce anti-Americanism in the Islamic world or put a dent in radical recruitment...
Finally, there is evidence that drone strikes are less harmful to civilians than other means of reaching Al Qaeda and affiliates in remote, lawless regions (for example, large-scale military operations). And that is what is required of states in armed conflict, legally and ethically: where civilian casualties cannot be avoided, they must be minimized."
Nov. 14, 2012 - Avery Plaw, PhD
Khuram Iqbal, PhD, Assistant Professor in the Department of Peace & Conflict Studies at National Defence University in Pakistan, stated the following in an Apr. 28, 2015 interview with Russian news agency RT titled "Strong Link Between US Drone Strikes and Rise of Suicide Terrorism in Pakistan," available at rt.com:
"As far as US drone strikes in Pakistan are concerned, they are tactically successful but strategically counterproductive. No doubt, these drone strikes have managed to kill high-profile terrorist leaders such as Baitullah Mehsud and Hakimullah Mehsud. But look at the cost. If you look at the official figures collected by independent researchers, attempts to kill 41 militant commanders have resulted in the deaths of estimated 1,200 people. It means that for each militant commander the US has killed more than 30 civilians. So again collateral damage on such a high scale does not bode well for Pakistan's national counter-terrorism policy that seeks to win over the population in conflict regions of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)...
[T]errorist groups in Pakistan are fighting with an anti-American agenda. They justify their violence against the Pakistani state and society as result of Islamabad's support for the US occupation of Afghanistan. So to undo this perception, the US must stop the drone strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan and let the Pakistani state deal with these terrorist organizations with all its indigenous resources."
Apr. 28, 2015 - Khuram Iqbal, PhD
Glenn Greenwald, JD, Investigative Journalist at First Look Media, wrote in his Apr. 19, 2012 article "America's Drone Sickness," posted on salon.com:
"There are many evils in the world, but extinguishing people’s lives with targeted, extra-judicial killings, when you don't even know their names, based on 'patterns' of behavior judged from thousands of miles away, definitely ranks high on the list...
Initially, it's critical to note how removed all of these questions are from democratic debate or accountability, thanks to the Obama administration's insistence that even the basic question of whether the CIA has a drone program is too secret to permit it to publicly acknowledge, even though everyone knows it exists — especially in the countries where it routinely kills people...
They have placed the policy beyond the rule of law — by insisting that it's too secret for courts to examine — and shielded it completely from democratic debate...
In late 2009, an Obama-approved attack with Tomahawk cruise missiles and cluster bombs killed dozens of innocent Yemenis, including 21 children. In May, 2010, a U.S. drone attack killed a popular Deputy Governor of a Yemeni province. In October of last year, two weeks after Obama successfully ordered the death of U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki, a U.S. drone strike killed his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman... It's not hard to imagine what ordinary Yemenis think of the U.S., and whether they'd be more sympathetic to Al Qaeda’s message after all of this."
Apr. 19, 2012 - Glenn Greenwald, JD
Michael Boyle, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science at LaSalle University and former member of President Obama's counterterrorism expert advisory group, wrote in his Jan. 15, 2013 paper "The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare" in International Affairs:
"The Obama administration's embrace of drones is encouraging a new arms race for drones that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent, destabilized and polarized between those who have drones and those who are victims of them.
It is ironic that Al-Qaeda's image of the United States—as an all-seeing, irreconcilably hostile enemy who rains down bombs and death on innocent Muslims without a second thought—is inadvertently reinforced by a drones policy that does not bother to ask the names of its victims. Even the casual anti-Americanism common in many parts of Europe, the Middle East and Asia, much of which portrays the US as cruel, domineering and indifferent to the suffering of others, is reinforced by a drones policy which involves killing foreign citizens on an almost daily basis. A choice must be made: the US cannot rely on drones as it does now while attempting to convince others that these depictions are gross caricatures. Over time, an excessive reliance on drones will deepen the reservoirs of anti-US sentiment, embolden America’s enemies and provide other governments with a compelling public rationale to resist a US-led international order which is underwritten by sudden, blinding strikes from the sky."
Jan. 15, 2013 - Michael Boyle, PhD
Dennis Blair, MA, former US Director of National Intelligence, stated in a Aug. 14, 2011 op-ed "Drones Alone Are Not the Answer" in the New York Times:
"[T]he important question today is whether continued unilateral drone attacks will substantially reduce Al Qaeda's capabilities. They will not... Qaeda officials who are killed by drones will be replaced. The group's structure will survive and it will still be able to inspire, finance and train individuals and teams to kill Americans. Drone strikes hinder Qaeda fighters while they move and hide, but they can endure the attacks and continue to function.
Moreover, as the drone campaign wears on, hatred of America is increasing in Pakistan. American officials may praise the precision of the drone attacks. But in Pakistan, news media accounts of heavy civilian casualties are widely believed. Our reliance on high-tech strikes that pose no risk to our soldiers is bitterly resented in a country that cannot duplicate such feats of warfare without cost to its own troops.
Our dogged persistence with the drone campaign is eroding our influence and damaging our ability to work with Pakistan to achieve other important security objectives like eliminating Taliban sanctuaries, encouraging Indian-Pakistani dialogue, and making Pakistan's nuclear arsenal more secure... If we are ever to reduce Al Qaeda from a threat to a nuisance, it will be by working with Pakistan, not by continuing unilateral drone attacks."
Aug. 14, 2011 - Dennis Blair, MA
David Cole, JD, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, said in his Feb. 13, 2013 article "What's Wrong with Obama's Drone Policy" in The Nation:
"Imagine that Russian President Vladimir Putin had used remote-controlled drones armed with missiles to kill thousands of 'enemies' (and plenty of civilians) throughout Asia and Eastern Europe. Imagine, further, that Putin refused to acknowledge any of the killings and simply asserted in general terms that he had the right to kill anyone he secretly determined was a leader of the Chechen rebels or 'associated forces,' even if they posed no immediate threat of attack on Russia. How would the State Department treat such a practice in its annual reports on human rights compliance?
Conveniently, the State Department’s country reports leave out the United States. Otherwise, it might have to pass judgment on President Obama’s use of drones to kill thousands of our 'enemies,' and lots of civilians, many of them far from any battlefield. But as citizens in whose name the president is exercising this power, we need to pass judgment... The more we learn, the more troubling the practice is...
The ambiguous definitions of the scope of this war and even of the enemy risk establishing a precedent that drones can be used against anyone a government considers even a long-term threat...
The root of the problem is that [drones] make it too easy to kill... In his only major presidential speech on national security, President Obama promised that he would fight terror within the confines of our values and the rule of law. What happened to that promise?"
Feb. 13, 2013 - David Cole, JD
Amnesty International stated in its Oct. 2013 report "'Will I Be Next?' US Drone Strikes in Pakistan" on amnesty.org:
"[T]he cases in this report raise serious concerns that the USA has unlawfully killed people in drone strikes, and that such killings may amount in some cases to extrajudicial executions or war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law. Like other forces operating in the Tribal Areas, the USA appears to be exploiting the lawless and remote nature of the region to evade accountability for its violations...
US policy and practice on targeted killings and drones are not only of concern in their own right: they also set a dangerous precedent that other states may seek to exploit to avoid responsibility for their own unlawful killings. If unchecked there is a real risk that the continued use of drones by the USA and an increasing number of other states will further corrode the foundations of the international framework for the protection of human rights."
Oct. 2013 - Amnesty International
The Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic and the Global Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law said in a 2012 report "Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan" at law.stanford.edu:
"We are in the midst of a significant period of drone proliferation, pushed forward on the one hand by governments and militaries, and on the other, by manufacturers seeking to expand markets and profit. Unchecked armed drone proliferation poses a threat to global stability, and, as more countries and non-state actors obtain access to the technology, the risk of US-style practices of cross-border targeted killing spreading are clear...
The ways in which the US has used drones in the context of its targeted killing policies has facilitated an undermining of the constraints of democratic accountability, and rendered resort to lethal force easier and more attractive to policymakers. The decision to use military force must be subject to rigorous checks-and-balances; drones, however, have facilitated the use of killing as a convenient option that avoids the potential political fallout from US casualties and the challenges posed by detention...
With policymakers making critical decisions about US policy outside the public's view, and an utter lack of any real transparency and accountability, the rule of law is undermined and a democratic deficit created."
2012 - Global Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law
Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic
David Rohde, Investigative Reporter for Reuters and Contributing Editor at The Atlantic, said in his Mar. 1, 2012 article "How Obama's Drone War Is Backfiring" on reuters.com:
"[T]the administration's excessive use of drone attacks undercuts one of its most laudable policies: a promising new post-9/11 approach to the use of lethal American force, one of multilateralism, transparency and narrow focus...
From Pakistan to Yemen to post-American Iraq, drones often spark deep resentment where they operate. When they do attack, they kill as brutally as any weapon of war. The administration’s practice of classifying the strikes as secret only exacerbates local anger and suspicion. Under Obama, drone strikes have become too frequent, too unilateral, and too much associated with the heavy-handed use of American power."
Mar. 1, 2012 - David Rohde
Ibrahim Mothana, late Yemeni activist, writer, and co-founder of Yemen's Al-Watan political party, said in his June 13, 2012 op-ed "How Drones Help Al Qaeda" at nytimes.com:
"Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair... Anti-Americanism is far less prevalent in Yemen than in Pakistan. But rather than winning the hearts and minds of Yemeni civilians, America is alienating them by killing their relatives and friends. Indeed, the drone program is leading to the Talibanization of vast tribal areas and the radicalization of people who could otherwise be America's allies in the fight against terrorism in Yemen...
Yemeni tribes are generally quite pragmatic and are by no means a default option for radical religious groups seeking a safe haven. However, the increasing civilian toll of drone strikes is turning the apathy of tribal factions into anger... Certainly, there may be short-term military gains from killing militant leaders in these strikes, but they are minuscule compared with the long-term damage the drone program is causing. A new generation of leaders is spontaneously emerging in furious retaliation to attacks on their territories and tribes.
This is why Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is much stronger in Yemen today than it was a few years ago. In 2009, A.Q.A.P. had only a few hundred members and controlled no territory; today it has, along with Ansar al-Sharia, at least 1,000 members and controls substantial amounts of territory...
America's counterterrorism policy here is not only making Yemen less safe by strengthening support for A.Q.A.P., but it could also ultimately endanger the United States and the entire world."
June 13, 2012 - Ibrahim Mothana, MA
Jeremy Scahill, Investigative Journalist and War Correspondant for First Look Media's "The Intercept," said in a May 29, 2013 interview with Tom Wainwright, homepage editor for The Economist titled "Drone Strikes and Other Unsavoury Things," available at economist.com:
"I think we should have a tactical discussion [about drones]. Who is actually being killed? We don't know who we're killing in these signature strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. So if you don't know who you're killing, and you don't necessarily have actual evidence that they're involved with terror plots, and you've decided to engage in a sort of pre-crime where you preemptively label military-age males in certain regions terrorists and then kill them, that sends a certain message to the world that the United States is acting with impunity and believes it has the right to intervene in sovereign nations and conduct war even without the authority of its own lawmakers.
I'm deeply concerned that the message we're sending the world is going to cause blowback - that we're going to get hit as a result of this, and that we lose our moral standing in the world."
May 29, 2013 - Jeremy Scahill
Ron Paul, MD, stated the following in his June 18, 2012 article titled "Ron Paul: Down with Deadly Drones, Both Foreign and Domestic," available at ronpaul.com:
"The use of drones overseas may have become so convenient, operated as they are from a great distance, that far more 'collateral damage' has become acceptable. Collateral damage is a polite way of saying killing innocent civilians…
This dramatic increase in the use of drones and the lowered threshold for their use to kill foreigners has tremendous implications for our national security. At home, some claim the use of drones reduces risk to American service members. But this can be true only in the most shortsighted sense. Internationally the expanded use of drones is wildly unpopular and in fact creates more enemies than it eliminates...
After a drone strike in Yemen last month once again killed more civilians than suspected al-Qaeda members, a Yemeni lawyer sent a message to President Obama stating 'Dear Obama, when a U.S. drone missile kills a child in Yemen, the father will go to war with you, guaranteed. Nothing to do with Al Qaeda.' These are the unseen victims of the president’s expanded use of drones, but we should pay attention and we should ask ourselves how we would feel if the tables were turned and a foreign power was killing innocent American children from thousands of miles away. Would we not feel the same?...
It is terrifying enough to see how drones are being misused abroad. We must curtail the government's ability use drones right away lest the massacres in Yemen and Pakistan turn out to be crude training exercises for what the administration has in mind on our own soil."
June 18, 2012 - Ron Paul, MD