Sure, both Israel and Saudi Arabia have been known to influence U.S. elections. But no one has done so previously through such brazenly illegal means.
And while I'm no fan of Netanyahu, Putin is clearly worse. While Trump seems to be in the pocket of both, willing to ignore the bloody international crimes of both expansionist militants.
Much as I usually agree with Juan, I have to say I'm in disagreement here. If those numbers are correct, and around 80% of those being killed by drones really are militants of some kind, I have to say that looks like a pretty fair ratio to me.
Yes, you would like it to be better. But this is a situation where there are often are no "good" choices. Sometimes you have to choose the best of the bad choices.
And to me, it seems that drone strikes have possibly been the single most effective tactic that has yet been employed against Al-Quaeda and associated militants.
I also see no major legal issues. As for US law, this was clearly authorized by Congress in the 2001 AUMF, and I see no chance the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. As for international law, there is little protection there for non-state actors like Al-Quaeda, so as long as Packistan is either allowing the strikes, or is unable themselves to prevent Al-Quaeda from using their territory as a base, then who is going to have a valid legal complaint?
Sure, both Israel and Saudi Arabia have been known to influence U.S. elections. But no one has done so previously through such brazenly illegal means.
And while I'm no fan of Netanyahu, Putin is clearly worse. While Trump seems to be in the pocket of both, willing to ignore the bloody international crimes of both expansionist militants.
Much as I usually agree with Juan, I have to say I'm in disagreement here. If those numbers are correct, and around 80% of those being killed by drones really are militants of some kind, I have to say that looks like a pretty fair ratio to me.
Yes, you would like it to be better. But this is a situation where there are often are no "good" choices. Sometimes you have to choose the best of the bad choices.
And to me, it seems that drone strikes have possibly been the single most effective tactic that has yet been employed against Al-Quaeda and associated militants.
I also see no major legal issues. As for US law, this was clearly authorized by Congress in the 2001 AUMF, and I see no chance the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. As for international law, there is little protection there for non-state actors like Al-Quaeda, so as long as Packistan is either allowing the strikes, or is unable themselves to prevent Al-Quaeda from using their territory as a base, then who is going to have a valid legal complaint?