In many ways, the seemingly furious debate over drones is yet another reaction to the pace at which technology washes over us. There is no doubt that drones raise legitimate legal issues, but it's just too easy to let our "privacy reflex" dominate and overwhelm the discussion.
You can't view gun control through the easy red-blue lens in Colorado, reflecting the purple wave in partisan logic in many corners of the state where both parties appear to be losing solid blocks of support. The emerging portrait indicates that Colorado will easily remain a swing state in 2016.
By the standards of slaughter in Vietnam, the deaths caused by drones are hardly a bleep on the consciousness of official Washington. But we have to wonder if each innocent killed doesn't give rise to second thoughts by those judges who prematurely handed our president the Nobel Prize for Peace.
The story of bin Laden's death is just one aspect of the international manhunt the United States has pursued, a worldwide dragnet of detention and death that has raised troubling questions and fervent debate over the fight against terrorism.
While the use of un-manned drones indeed protects American soldiers, the growing number of casualties has prompted a United Nations investigation into both the legality and the deadly toll of these strikes.
So, yes, a candidate for president talks about drones in detail, with great awareness about how they are counterproductive to United States security concerns. Problem is, the candidate is running for president of Pakistan.