Editor, Gazette-Journal:

I have a big problem with drones. Drones as you know commonly are remotely controlled objects that can help protect our borders, look for lost hikers, seek out and destroy terrorists, and even in the insect world, make honey, but these are not the drones I mean.

Political and ideological drones, unthinking individuals who listen to their leaders rather than think independently, are the ones I mean. The current controversy over the use of drones by the president to kill those who kill us—created by the left and, strangely, the right—can only be the work of drones. I’ll illustrate.

Should a U.S. national fighting for the enemy be targeted for extinction by a drone with no loss of U.S. human assets at risk, or should we kill more of our youth trying to capture said traitor? Some believe our Constitutional rights extend beyond our borders on foreign soil. They do not. We may choose to afford these rights to the enemy, but we and no other government is required to. There are rules covering handling of prisoners that we do follow, but an attack is fairly open.

The key here is this person is the enemy, not a criminal, and the crowd around the target is not prisoners but supporters. Yes, sometimes innocents may die—as they have in all wars—but steps are taken to minimize them when possible. Some believe drones are a threat to individual freedom here at home granted by the Constitution.

Privacy is in your home, on your property and in a few areas where deemed not in public or in your car. If you are doing something illegal or immoral, privacy laws do not protect you, and I for one may want you caught. Fear of being caught and actually prosecuted is a deterrent; our streets and children may be safer for it.

Enhanced interrogation and the Patriot Act have been thrown up as current examples of hypocrisy by the current president, as he was against both. Thinking people know each one of these issues must be measured on its own merits. The only problem I had with waterboarding is once you bring someone onto American soil (which Gitmo is), U.S. law should be applied. Do it off U.S. soil, right or wrong, I’ll live with it. The Patriot Act has a FISA court that within I believe three days of tapping a U.S. citizen’s phone, the court must approve the tap or cut it. The proposal to create a similar court for drone attacks won’t work, because opportunities must be seized, and once dead … You get the point.

My point is simple: political and ideological dogma are cut and dry; things, like war and personal privacy, are not. War cannot be fought and won by committee and privacy is more a benefit than an absolute right.

S.J. Mehaffey

Gloucester, Va.