I do not support the drone bombings of funerals or other high casualty(for innocents) locations. I recall, during the Bush years, there were quite a few discussions over hypothetical situations in which an military base would be next to a hospital, and if they were legitimate targets for advanced bombing runs. I vehemently disagreed with those who said those bases were fair game and the hospitals were "collateral damage". I consider the argument of drone bombing areas with alot of civilians(as the "collateral damage") the same exact thing. In that context, i do not believe we should authorize attacks. We create more enemies then we kill.
That said, i approve the use of drone strikes against legitimate military targets. I define legitimate military targets as bases or locations which are confirmed to have enemy insurgents and little to no civilians in them. If the amount of civilians is low enough to roughly equal the amount that could be injured or killed in a crossfire during a convential attack on that location, as President i would probably sign off on it and as a citizen of this country i would probably support that action...so long as it is not a universal rule of thumb for engagements. The reward has to be high enough. Does that reduce human life to numbers? Yes. Does it make me feel all pretty and fuzzy inside? No. Would i support it for some random idiot filled with teenage angst angry at the government? No. Would i support it if it was bin Laden or other enemies who attempt to commit large scale attacks on innocent civilians? Yes.
As well, i support the technology, production, and continued research of military drones(and electronic warfare). I think if we are going to be spending absurd amounts of money into the military, we need to focus on areas in which limit America casualties and prevent a war from occuring in the first place. The F-35 is an example of my frustration. Sweet plane, absolutely cutting edge....but it has little practical purposes.
A few months ago(year maybe) there was a large discussion concerning the drone strike against a America citizen and how his civil rights were violated because he couldnt be brought in for due process. I largely stayed out of it but enjoyed the various points of view. As we are bringing up funeral bombings in this thread(actually think it was the other thread, but whatever its here now), ill go ahead and state my own opinion on this controversial subject and the larger question of it: do i support Obama drone bombing an America citizen? Conditionally yes.
My personal view on it is that the citizen has renounced his ties to this country and, by doing so, lost his ability to be safe guarded by the constitution. When you go to court you can wave many rights. When a person announces their desire to harm this country, when they join up with like minded individuals, and when they actively plan specific attacks, they wave many of their rights. Now, the condition to that, if we have the chance to arrest them and go to court: you do it. Just because they have waved their constitution rights and responsibilities doesnt mean we have. We have an obligation to live up to a certain standard and we should do so at every chance. But, if we only have one solid chance(as in, we have no real reason to assume we will get another chance to locate such a dangerous person) to prevent that person from harming innocents and we do not have the ability to arrest them, we should take them out. The example i spoke of earlier was one(if i recall correctly) in which the (former depending on your view) American was traveling in a convoy of enemies driving to a different location. They dropped a bomb on them and took care of the situation rather definitively. If the case is like i recall, i probably supported it at that time and i would support similar situations now. I view it similar to a disgruntled employee pulling out a gun and shooting his employeer before turning the gun on random people. Should the cops arrest him if given the chance? Yes, but they should also shoot him on the spot if others, or they themselves, are threatened.
If my view sounds contradictory, its because it is. Like many subjects in our current day and age, i dont see it as black and white. Its not a situation id feel good about no matter what side of it id sit on. Im not going to go through every single situation and debate every specific point. But, if you have a question about clarification or if ive missed an important point, ill respond to that.
Cliffnotes(tl;dr): Do i support drone strikes? Yes. Do i support the targets Obama has chosen for drone strikes? No. Do i expect it to change before the 2016 election(or even after, taking it election by election)? No. Is it an issue that would prevent me for voting for Obama if i so choose? No. Do i wish like hell we had different candidates? Abso-freaking-lutely.