Use of drones is disappointing, legally questionable

Twice I’ve voted for President Obama, and would again, but I am disappointed by his use of drones [“On drones, Obama is Bush,” Opinion, Feb. 13].

I’m surprised he is using them in countries with which we aren’t at war, which I doubt is legal. Maybe his military advisers have convinced him that the U.S. is justified in their use, but how would we react if another country used them against us? We would probably say that it was an act of war and shoot them down!

Their use probably isn’t constitutional, we are making new enemies every time we use them and we don’t need more of those!

--Anne E. Corley, Mercer Island

Drones cause less collateral damage

The answer to Bruce Ramsey’s question dealing with our drone attacks in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, as to whether the killing is different when a Democrat does it, is obviously no.

The collateral loss of civilian lives is tragic regardless of who is in charge. But what would Ramsey have President Obama do, re-employ “shock and awe” as was used to pummel Baghdad during the initial attacks on Iraq by George W. Bush? Hundreds of cruise missiles were used causing God-only-knows how many civilian deaths.

Or maybe we should send our B-52s over at 25,000 feet to drop their gigantic bomb loads on those areas where we suspect terrorists might be hanging out. Sure, we might get a few of them, but can anyone imagine the collateral damage? Think of Vietnam.

If someone can come up with a cleaner method going after the terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen or Somalia, I’m all in favor. But, we can’t use Navy SEALs in every operation. As good as they are, that would be way too risky. Or should we just ignore the terrorists?

--Gary Nelson, Bellingham