What? That does it, I now completely and sadly understand that we are living in the twilight zone.

Saw him on Fox News a couple of days ago, making this same argument. I think he´s way out on a limb all by himself here.

Bolton is smart like a fox. Nothing will raise the hackles of the Obamatrons quicker than high praise from someone like him. It´ll make their heads explode as they try to process it. Now, if Dick Cheney were to publicly agree, it will be great fun watching the One´s media lackeys twisting themselves into knots trying to cover.

Disappointed to hear him say this. Using drones on the battlefield is one thing but using them over American soil is disturbing. Isn´t it the FBI´s job to hunt down the bad guys at home? It is just unsettling to give this kind of power to the government when it can so easily and quickly become abusive. The government truly is becoming a menace.

Dr. K agrees with him.

Combatants are combatants.

Is this a war or not ?

The reservations we feel are due to Barky´s penchant for domestic intrusion and meddling here at home with such devices.

I usually enjoy the brilliant conservative insights of the Yale (summa cum laude) educated former ambassador with the "Yosemite Sam" mustache...This time, however, I think he may have wandered outside the park.

Sadly, I think he is right - I recall Newt Gingrich saying something like this during the primaries.

John Bolton is correct. This is the natural/logical consequence of the Patriot Act. So is the unrestricted monitoring of phone calls, e-mails and other electronic abilities. So are the ideas of monitoring people´s travel habits and gas consumption, flying over their properties with drone cameras, and pulling them over on the freeway for TSA type searches.

Are these things constitutional? No. Would George W. Bush have done them? Probably not. But, as many of us pointed out when Homeland Security and the Patriot Act were being established, George W. Bush was not going to be President forever. And that is the problem with starting a small ball rolling in an unconstitutional direction. Someone is going to come along and roll it a little faster and a little bigger.

"Whether it is foreign citizens who are involved with Al Qaeda or American citizens, we are in a war. They have attacked us. "


I agree with Mr. Bolton up to a point, and that is the point at which these drones begin to be deployed in American cities. While it may be proper to use whatever force is necessary against a terrorist, I am concerned about such weapons under the control of a government that has begun to consider Christians, conservatives, veterans, and gun-owners as potential terrorists.

What worries me is who gets to define just who or what is a "terrorist." Seems that definition could, and I am sure will, be changed with or without notice.

You may need to fight the war on terror via unconventional means like drones, and you may have to kill american citizens who are fighting against our country, but that does NOT mean that you have to discard constitutional protections to do so. Due process is a constitutionally protected right and there´s no reason that it couldn´t be used in these cases!

obama has contempt for the Constitution. His ruthlessness is unconstrained by it. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe obama has no qualms about the use of drones to spy on domestic political enemies which include people who own firearms. I don´t understand Republicans who understate how dangerous, radical and untrustworthy the obama regime is.

Drone air attacks with deadly force ordered unilaterally by Resident Obozo against a sovereign nation; such as Yemen on their soil, with which we are not at war and pose no immediate threat to America is the act of a war criminal and in the case of the 16 year old American nonTerriost, a murderer... Immediate threat requires use of the war powers act and congress approval .. notice Obozo does it only to nations that cannot fight back... The act of a bully... try that in China or Russia ... any technically competent country can make drones and do that to Obozo... Would drone attacks be an act of war against America... you betcha

Before I condemn the former Ambassador, I would like to know how he feels about that DHS report that was released regarding the subject of who they consider to be domestic terrorists. Because he certainly would fit into at least one category neatly. No question about it, this WH has no problems with using these drones over US soil on American citizens.

And is Bolton ok with actual terrorists using these drones in an attack on the Capitol building or the WH? Now that the drone home base is revealed to be in Saudi territory, it will only be a matter of time.

With all due respect, Amb. Bolton, (and I do have great respect for you), just how does Obama´s death-by-drone policy comport with the silly rules of engagement imposed on our military. We have imposed more constraints on our military than the Knapp Commission imposed on the NYPD. Meanwhile, the approximately 2500 drone attacks have caused considerable collateral damage and casualties to innocent people.
Second, at just what point in time will Obama deem the Tea Party to be a subversive, terrorist leaning organization, and deploy drones? Do we have any faith at all that Obama won´t use drones to quell opposition, increase or retain political power, assert uncontitutional authority over the American citizenry?

Yes, true. That said Obamao exoriated President Bush for every aspect of the anti terror program.

He shrieked that the terrorists didn´t get due process. He wanted the Gitmo prisoners to be tried in our US courtrooms.

It´s the rank hipocrisy that is so infuriating.

However, murdering a 16 yr. old boy who could easily have been grabbed off the street is over the top.

And to suggest he was murdered because he had the wrong father (Gibb´s comments) is sickening.

#4, you might look in the constitution and its amendments for the clause giving the federal gov authority to have an FBI. I can´t find it in my copy. Generally, the states would be better at that anyway if their citizen´s income wasn´t stolen by the feds for ´redistributing´.

Overseas, this policy is fine. When I was in Iraq nearly 10 years ago, if crap happened, I wasn´t going to ask the person shooting at me for a passport to check their nationality before I fired back.

These terrorists have declared war on us many times here and abroad. They have declared ALL Americans combatants. This includes young, old, males, females, everyone, not just the military. So if you are in a location of known terrorists, you are a target. If civilians get hurt in the attack, I am not going to shed a tear.

Terrorists are not legal combatants. They have no rights under conventions or laws or war. If captured, we have to right under the above to execute them on the spot. I don´t favor that, but holding them in proper minimal conditions until the terrorists as a whole give up. No more catch and release. We hold you until the war is over, period. We never need to hold any trial

Now if such is done here, the reason had better be beyond all debate or there will be heck to pay. And if used against groups other than islamic terrorists such as the TEA Party, the Usurper and his Corrupt Party will face even larger heck. Much larger heck.

Let us remember (and keep reminding everyone) that Bush was forced to withdraw Brennan´s nomination.

These days Bolton is usually the smartest guy in the room.

We should be careful about loathing Obie so much that we, at some point, throw the baby out with the bath water.

OK I´m done with Bolton. Never suggest him as ambassador for anything.Fully aware his past is stuffed with wisdom on various patchy subjects. Don´t care. No. No. No.

I am confused by many of the above posters. It´s OK for a citizen to shoot and kill a home-invader who may want to murder your Family without *due process*, but not OK to shoot and kill an American Terrorist who has sworn, and is working, to murder ALL our Families!

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of alleged Americans overseas working against America. If President Obama wants to kill some of his biggest supporters, I am going to watch and cheer.

#22, It is okay to shoot a home invader when he is invading your home. It is not okay to shoot someone that you think might be a home invader because he is standing on the sidewalk looking at your home.

There are two problems here. One is that we don´t know what the rules of engagement are for using drones on Americans because those are secret. (Nothing to worry about there as long as you trust your government.) Two, our government has already listed as potential American terrorists: People who are strongly anti-abortion or have other deeply held religious convictions, people who defend the Constitution over the federal government or the UN, people who are of an individualistic nature, and returning veterans to name a few.

I have no problem with shooting and killing an American terrorist who has sworn, and is working, to murder our families. It´s some of the other possibilities that give me pause.

#24 nails it in spades. Excellent points. I love Mr. Bolton, but I strongly disagree with him on this.

#24 Thank you for more food for thought about: *a government we can TRUST*!

Does anyone remember a few years ago the report on Fox about a new underground bunker being built close to the WH? It was not reported on any newspaper or any MSM program. Also remember the Homeland Security purchasing great amounts of hollow nose bullits. Thoughts about what might happen are chilling! God will not put up with this crap - we better turn this ship around & soon or we are gone. II Chronicles 7:14