Once again, The Onion manages to nail an issue...

[Mytical]

Lets say that this government body is full of just good people. People who will exercise intelligence, forethought, and only strike when absolutely necessary. Lets also assume they are infallible (which I very highly doubt). We trust them to always make the right call, and somehow, despite being human..they always make the right call. (again, something I very highly doubt). What about the next people in? Or the next? It's like giving the president the power to pass any law he wants without congress or anybody else being able to say Jack about it. One person MIGHT use this for only good..but what about those in the future? Not one person who might want to use it for their own agenda will EVER be in that position to do so? Really? You really believe that? Really?

If not, how many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice, all in the name of safety? They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin.

[Panacea]

It blows my mind how much this is being blown out of proportion. One guy gets blown up and he was clearly, without a single possible doubt, was guilty as hell. And suddenly people think the government is going to start nuking Americans everywhere.

People are upset because of the inherent conflict between a nation that proclaims it lives by the rule of law, and pressures other countries to follow those rules . . . then suspends them when it's convenient.

I'm not saying the government made the wrong call by nailing this guy. They probably made the right call. But we should, as a nation, be uncomfortable with the means they chose to do it even if it was the right call. Why? Because we should always have second thoughts about breaking our own rules. When we stop having second thoughts about breaking the rules, the rules become much easier to break, and innocent people start getting hurt.

Well, it's a good thing that we debate our beliefs on this board and not over whether something is legal or not. I'd prefer to argue the morality of assassinating terrorists.

The US Government has laws against assassination, which makes the whole drone program problematic for me. I see little difference between a drone strike and a hit man (sorry, sniper) on a rooftop with a high power scope.

You can try to word or phrase it any way you want, but we don't launch missiles at terrorists just on a whim. Only proven terrorists get that kind of treatment.

In any case, the word "terrorist" is thrown about too casually, and applied more liberally as time goes on. Look at Syria; the government there is trying to discredit a rebellion by using our label of terrorists on the rebels.

What intelligence agency runs the no-fly list? Looks like some sub-branch of a sub-branch of the FBI. Well, don't worry, it's not the FBI since clearly foreign matters don't fall under the FBI's jurisdiction. The people who handle the intelligence gathering are specifically trained in gathering this specific type of evidence. It's a complicated, detailed process which has to be accepted by and approved by a long list of higher ups before an assassination of such a sort can be done.

That's a good question. Who DOES create the no fly list? How do they decide who gets on it, and why do they keep making so many bone headed errors as to who gets on that list, and refuse to take clear errors off of it? If the US Government can't even keep babies and US Senators off the list, then why should I take their word for it that they take care with who's on a drone strike list, and that care is being taken to avoid collateral damage?

At some point, people are just going to have to suck it up and realize that a lot of this stuff IS classified and will not be declassified just to solve a simple curiosity. It's classified because if we make the entire process (Evidence gathering, etc.) public, the terrorists will then know what we do, how we do it, and how to fight better against us. It is not in America's (Or anyone else's best interest) to make this knowledge public.

I agree, the average citizen should not know everything about military planning and so on. But the best disinfectant is sunshine, and the government classifies stuff just for the sake of making it classified. That's why Wikileaks is so popular; people see the pure BS being classified and wonder if the government can ever get it right when it comes to what's a secret and what's not.

It's funny how you people keep talking about all these liberties and freedoms that we've given up but ironically, I haven't given up any such thing.

Really? Tell me, when was the last time you were able to get on an airplane without taking off your shoes first? Or waiting in the Box of Shame for the right gender screener to get around to doing the pat down and "enhanced screening" you got randomly picked for while you wait wondering if you're going to make your flight or not?

Get back to me when the government starts assassinating people based on rumors. I'll be waiting.

Absolutely. They just don't have to make any of it public.

Also, come back to me when we start using drone strikes in our own country.

Hmm. On the one had you said we have to suck it up and accept the government isn't going to tell us some things. Then you ask us to prove the government assassinates people on rumors or in this country.

Do you really think the government is going to tell the truth if they authorize a drone strike based on a rumor, or within our borders?

I'm not saying I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I'm not. But you can't claim on the one hand that the government can hide secrets, then claim the government doesn't do certain things . . . because if they did those things, they certainly wouldn't publicize it.