[lbryce]

The question of the legality of drone kills in the absence of due process of law within the confines of a court of law has been examined but no one has ever done anything to protect the rights of butchers, killers genocidal beasts because the reality of guilt of these dead terrorists has made it that no one made the effort to make sure it passed legal muster. he fact is, it has been brought up in a low key manner that the drones used by Obama to kill terrorists wasn't exactly legal, then you've got the collateral damage issue as well. But they're cold -blooded terrorists. Well, you can say the British liberal counterparts are at least consistent unlike ours.

[outofsalt]

The idea that traitors who are fighting overseas with our enemies deserve protection in the courts is ludicrous. They don’t merit any refuge in law as they are treasonists abroad.
An enemy combatant is an enemy regardless of citizenship.
What’s more important; what ever happened to OpSec?

[Hulka]

The Brits are in a shooting war in Afghanistan.

UAV strikes are simply dropping a bomb on a bad guy and the pilot just happens to be far away from the platform.

What is the difference between a fighter pilot flying an F-15E over-head the tgt-area and dropping a JDAM, or a fighter pilot flying an F-15E miles and miles away and dropping a SDB-II (glides VERY FAR) or a fighter pilot sitting in an UAV "cockpit" (easy-chair) in Nevada (with better resolution screens than found in the cockpit overhead the tgt) and dropping a JDAM .

No difference. . .and who gives a darn about terrorists and due process while in a combat zone.

[ronnietherocket3]

This is a war. People shooting at you/your allies or supporting your enemies are completely legitimate military targets.

[silverleaf]

Hasn’t obama already been doing this in Yemen?