You're missing the points and creating straw men. None of the things you've mentioned are comparable. Paramedics can kill you through inaction? That's laughably irrelevant.

Its the "Government" killing you. That's the point. The government can kill you for a lot of things. Why is this a big deal? Camps? I'll question them. A paramilitary force to "assist" or "Augment" the normal police or National Guard? Yup, gonna question it. Using a drone? No, not a big deal.

[quote] A paramilitary force to "assist" or "Augment" the normal police or National Guard? Yup, gonna question it. Using a drone? No, not a big deal.[/quote]Paramilitary is bad, but ACTUAL military is fine? I don't get it. [quote]Its the "Government" killing you.[/quote]This is a gross oversimplification of the problem.

Do you honestly believe that the US military would follow such orders and fire on Americans? If you do, then this conversation is done. I'm former Army. I was an Infantryman from 1994 to 1998. The men I served with are some of the most upstanding and good people I've met. The idea that they could fire on American Civilians is laughable. Even Hitler couldn't use the Wehrmacht against Germans. So, Yes, history backs me up on this, a paramilitary force needs to be the ones pulling the trigger, the standard military will not.

While I respect that view and your service, the fact is that the US military has already followed orders to execute not one but two American citizens, one of whom was legally a child. Also, the Kent State Massacre. The men and women I know who are or were in the armed forces I firmly believe would have a similar moral grounding as you and the folks you served with. But I think you and I both agree that there are bad apples in any bunch (perpetrators of Haditha, Robert Bales, or Nidal Hassan, for recent real-life examples) and it's bad to base policy on our own good experiences when we know those experiences are not universal.

The fact we can name the individuals and the very few massacres goes to prove my point. Can you think of a single SS Private at any massacre in Poland? Can you even name the massacres themselves? (without using Google) There just isn't that many bad apples, nor a reason for US troops to abandon their humanity at home. In Iraq or Afghanistan, sure. But the Taliban and Al Qaeda created a situation that this would be the case. This is why the whole Drones-Used-On-Americans argument is silly to me. Now, you want an argument that'll stick? The Highway Patrol giving out speeding tickets when you can't see the cop catching you. All of the people driving with expired tags. Reckless drivers. The UV Light Bleed Off from Pot Grow-Lights being detected in a macro scale.... That stuff, sure, get mad about. But don't make up OBAMA IZ GUNNA LAUNCH HELLFIREZ FROM PREDATOR DrONEZZ!!! Arguments. It keeps the real discussion from happening and makes you look silly.

We can name the individuals? I have no idea who pulled the trigger on al-Awlaki, and probably couldn't know if I tried to find out. I can name those who were guilty of crimes (Hasan, Bales, etc.), sure. But if we're to the point that the gov't is ordering drone strikes on citizens, rest assured that that same gov't will not consider carrying out those orders a crime. (Not sure of the relevance of the WWII comparison; there are myriad reasons why I can't name such things [wasn't there, long time ago, Germans lost the war, records destroyed, etc.], and they have nothing to do with this issue.) [quote]There just isn't that many bad apples, nor a reason for US troops to abandon their humanity at home. In Iraq or Afghanistan, sure. But the Taliban and Al Qaeda created a situation that this would be the case. [/quote]Not many, but they do exist, so it's better that we establish that the gov't cannot order execution-by-drone rather than relying on the golden heart and good sense of the drone operator to prevent it. Your other arguments? You're basically complaining that the cops can catch criminals more effectively. That's not going to get much traction. And while there are valid property rights and privacy concerns buried in those arguments, if I'm having this much trouble convincing people of the wrongness of execution-by-drone without a trial, then I don't really have much hope for people understanding why the gov't shouldn't be able to peer onto private property whenever they please.