The Debate Drones On

The Obama administration is now saying that the United States has the right to kill a US citizen, with an unmanned drone, if it is believed that this person is a threat to the safety of the country. An example of this occurred when Anwar al Awlaki was killed by one of our drones along with his 16 year old son. There should be no doubt that Alwlaki was a threat to our society but there remains some doubt about the kid. Sure, he might have grown into a terrorist, following in his father's footsteps, but when he was killed he was just a teenager who probably worried more about his zits and little Asfida Ali down the block just a stones throw (forgive the pun) from the mosque, than about killing infidels.

There is a lot to debate about this issue--whether it's okay to kill American citizens based on evidence but lack of due process. There are clearly no clear answers. The Awlaki kid is an example of the dilemma.

The thing is, drones don't make surgical strikes that only kill bad guys. They often kill innocent (until proven guilty) bystanders. And how are decisions made as to who really poses a threat to our safety, and who doesn't. Does Obama decide this? Doesn't his administration have too much power already?

There must be more discussion on both sides of the issue and the solution will not be easy. We, as a nation, cannot allow Islamic terrorism to threaten us, and the only thing jihadists understand is strength, not a sit-down to discuss things like Obama hoped to do with Iran. Predictably, Iran refuses to have a sit-down with our ruler. 

Maybe we should "drone" Ahamdinejad--he isn't a US citizen. I know one thing Obama would like to "drone." 

Tweet