When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.

It has seem a joke for an overly long time. When you can buy every homeless person in this country a $600k mansion for the money we've spent on this thing one has to wonder why are Forget buying a homeless person/family a big mansion, get them a permanent starter home (my part of Ohio, super nice new family homes are $150k, starter homes are well under $100k), job training, and voila, not only far less money spent then is spent on homeless shelters, but they are now trained workers, in a home, and we've still save far more than this program.

Wasn't the F-22 canceled because this was supposed to save us money? That and the inability to export it... which raises the question are we wanting to build the best aircraft for our defense or a plane that we can sell, because those are not super compatible. Yes the F-15 and F-16 are both aging designs, but this program so far doesn't seem to be the answer. Heck, the B-52 fleet is scary old and there doesn't seem to be any real replacements for it.

One of the supposed tasks of the F-35 is to provide a sensor rich environment for other aircraft to operate in, providing these other craft with sensor data, but this task seems best dealt with using drones. Why I question the use of drone strikes (at least as used now), a drone flying though the field providing rich sensor data for the follow up fighters and bombers seems to be a perfect role for drones.

At this point the program is probably only going on because we've spent so much on it that turning back will be seen as a bigger waste than going forward.

He might be correct in theory, but realistically they will follow all but the most heinous orders. It is entrenched in them the longer they serve to follow commands and the threat of military prison is there as well. For something like this to happen, it would require 100% agreement and compliance between all levels of the commanding officers on a very controversial decision.

More likely is that the orders would be filtered and interpreted by the actual lower level commanders in a way to make them ineffective. For instance, if Trump ordered a drone strike on illegal immigrants (just an example based on his dislike of them), the drone might encounter mechanical issues or just miss the target. Soldiers, by and large, are great bullshitters. Trust me, if you ever play pen and paper RPGs with them it is fucking hilarious how they work out ways to dodge 'orders'.

That's the problem right there: most Christians don't read their own fucking book. If they'd took it as seriously as the claim, as they tell gay people they do, we would hunt them down with drone strikes. Just like any other religious extremist. Same bullshit, different flavour.

what a fantastic discussion.
i would just like to add a few points:
1.religious texts are inert.they are neutral.
WE give them meaning.
so if you are a violent person,your religion will be violent.
if you are a peaceful and loving person,your religion will be peaceful and loving.
2.religion,along with nationalism,are the two greatest devices used by the state/tyrant/despot/king to instigate a populace to war/violence.
3.as @Barbar noted.islam is in serious need of reformation,much like the christian church experienced centuries ago.see:the end of the dark ages.
4.one of my problems with maher,harris and to a lesser extent dawkins,is that they view this strictly as a religious problem and ignore the cultural and social implications of the wests interventionism in the middle east.this is a dynamic and complicated situation,which goes back decades and to simply say that this is a problem with islam is just intellectually lazy.

there is a reason why these communities strap bombs to their chest.there is a reason why they behead people on youtube.there is a reason why salafism and wahabism are becoming more entrenched and communities are becoming more radicalized.

islam is NOT the reason.
islam is the justification.

the reason why liberals lose absofuckingalways,is because they not only feel they are,as @gorillaman pointed out,"good" but that they are somehow "better" than the rest of us.

sam harris is a supreme offender in this regard.that somehow the secular west has "better" or "good" intentions when we interfere with the middle east.that when a US drone strike wipes out a wedding party of 80 people is somehow less barbaric than the beheading of charlie hedbo.

yet BOTH are barbaric.

and BOTH utilize a device that justifies their actions.
one uses national security and/or some altruistic feelgood propaganda and the other uses islam.

yet only one is being occupied,oppressed,bombed and murdered.

this is basic.
there really is no controversy.
this is in our own history.
what is the only response when faced with an overwhelming and deadly military force,when your force is substantially weaker?
guerrilla warfare.

so the tactic of suicide bomber becomes more understandable when put in this context.
it is an act of desperation in the face of overwhelming military might to instill fear and terror upon those who wish to dominate and oppress.

and islam is the device used to justify these acts of terror.
just as nationalism and patriotism are used to justify OUR acts of terror.

thats my 2c anyways.
carry on peoples.

"It's been one culture that's been blowing shit up over and over again"

Americans?

This is really fucking reprehensible on Mahers part. He's an American and an atheist. See how quickly he takes responsibility for drone strikes, wire-tapping, dropping atomic bombs on civilians. How about the Stalinist purges?

Know what he'd say? I don't support that (except maybe the drone strikes, because fuck brown people, amirite?). I'm not part of that.

SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU PUTTING 9/11 ON A FUCKING KID WHO PROBABLY WASN'T EVEN BORN?

Hey, ya know what? Maybe we should be careful. Maybe we should treat the kind of people who commit mass killings in the US with a degree of caution. So let's start with locking up the white males, 'cos those motherfuckers seem to go on shooting sprees with depressing regularity.

Ugh, seriously, fuck Maher. That was fucking disgusting to watch.

"I didn't think I would ever be in position that I would ever have to take somebody else's life"

That's the opening quote, from somebody in the military flying armed drone strikes. I am gonna call that unrealistic expectations, the army and military are not about negotiating with the enemy, their purpose is the threat of violence and death should negotiations fail. If you don't expect taking a life to be part of military operations, you didn't understand the entire concept of a military.

Then it's compounded, with this gem of a quote:
"I thought we were trying to rebuild their democracy"
Where did there exist a democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else he might have been flying a drone? Violent, repressive military dictatorships and stateless anarchy were the precursors.

Somewhere in between the cries to kill all Muslims and the Chomsky like claims that everything is the fault of the West is a middle ground I wish people would pay attention to and discuss.

There are parts of the world that are completely lawless, and for all intents and purposes have NO government despite the land itself falling within declared national borders. Tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African states like Yemen and Somalia are relevant examples. There are powerful non-state organizations waging war from this regions. Al Qaeda and the TTP being only the most popular examples, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are others. These non-state entities are pushing ideologies that are not simply counter to western values, but that violate all UN agreed notions for basic human rights.

The question isn't drones good or drones bad. It isn't America good or America bad. It's not even killing good or killing bad. That's all just propaganda.

The real question is when powerful non state actors wage war with the declared goal of revoking many globally upheld human rights, how do we respond? The idea that drones should never be part of that answer seems equally facile to the idea that they always should be.

Hi, I'm Dug!

I've just met you, and I'm going to launch a drone strike on your ass!

He's certainly not the worst of the Republican candidates. I agree with his positions on the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, drone strikes, militarizaton of police and immigration.

However, I disagree with him about abortion, gun control, the environment, tax policy and healthcare.

On the plus side, at least he seems to accept the reality of evolution and sorta-maybe-dunno accepts climate change.

So, best of a bad bunch, but I'm far from a fan.

So many sick burns, I might have mistaken this for a Jemeni wedding after a drone strike.

Fuck this asshole.

If we have to have drone strikes (and it appears we do) this motherfucker should be top of the list.

I never said that we should brand people living in Islamic regions as the same. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that if you seriously follow the tenets of the Islamic religion, not casually but seriously follow what the religion says, then you will be doing whatever you can to further the spread of Islam and Sharia law.

This is somewhat of a problem in all religions, but IT IS PREDOMINANT in Islam because Islam has never stepped away from these rules and tenets. In a very sad way, Islam is still in the state Christianity was during the damn inquisition and crusades. Now you will have people that refuse to devote themselves fully to Islam and those people will not act in a fashion like I illustrated. They are truly casual worshipers that have found a way to morally work around the tenets of the religion. I have no problem with those folks. Sadly, a huge amount of evidence points towards the information that they are a minority of the religion.

As far as US involvement, I said that we do stick our nose where it doesn't belong and that we should cut the rest of the world off when it comes to requests for military aid. But lets look at the link you posted. I see about half or more of the incidents are the US providing help at the request of other countries or joining coalitions of other countries. You can't have it both ways, either ask us to back out of the world scene completely or get over it when we do get involved at your request. Do you think we just popped up and sent troops/missiles to Turkey because we wanted to? Or did we invade Jordan while sending troops to help prevent the Syrian Civil War from spilling over into their country? They ASKED us to come and help. Are drone strikes against terrorists stupid? Absolutely and they help the terrorists find new recruits, but does that make Islam any less of a violence promoting religion?

The answer is no, it does not. Nor does your attempt to veer the spotlight off of the failings of Islam and back onto something else. You can misdirect all you like, but until you can provide hard facts you are simply equivocating.

Islam promotes Sharia law. Tell me truthfully if you can, that a religion that supports the execution of a woman who left the faith to marry a man her family didn't receive a dowry from is a religion of peace. Tell me that a religion that supports the execution of Homosexuals is a religion of peace. Tell me that a religion that still promotes honor killing is a religion of peace.

Because if that is the case, by your own definition the US is the greatest supporter of peace since the Romans.

Does anyone see the parallels between the Drone strikes and the master plan of Hydra in Captain American: Winter Soldier?

No, I don't HAVE to admit that. He's commander in chief, he should be involved to an extent.
I will say it's a GOOD thing he is forced to personally order a strike on Americans...at least, should that be litigated and found to be illegal, we'll know exactly who to prosecute, but that's certainly not the norm. Normal drone strikes are done by techs under minimal supervision and/or responsibility for the consequences.
It's too bad your political affiliation can't let you see that the last administration was even less transparent. I agree, Obama did not keep his word to have a 100% transparent white house, or anything close to it. It's quite disappointing. I will also say, however, that I assign a large portion of blame to the last administration for making that possible with their 'legalization' of subterfuge, misdirection, lies, obfuscation, declaration of 'state secrets', etc. If we ALL had gotten up in arms then and put a stop to it, Obama wouldn't be able to be so secretive, neither would the next guy (or gal).

Again....WHAT?!?
You act as if one denies the other. Most drone strikes have been done in theaters where we had 'boots on the ground'. Are you unaware of that?!