The US Predator drones have probably been the single most effective weapon in combating terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Invaluable for targeting Taliban and Al-Qaeda, they have accounted for many high value targets who were beyond the reach of conventional attack.

Virtually invisible when flying, they are able to track and hit targets from the air when mountainous terrain makes it notoriously hard to send troops.

So what do the leftys in America want to do to help? Have them declared illegal.

Obama’s recent national security decisions are leading to suggestions that legal challenges could be made against the U.S. military’s use of Predator drones.

“That’s the spooky thing about the Predator,” national security and terrorism expert Neil Livingstone said. “Even if the Predator is directly overhead and you know it’s overheard, you still can’t see it or hear it. This is kind of like death out of the blue.”

The Predator program, which is a holdover from the Bush administration, could be the next legal battle against the government by opponents who say use of the Predator could be illegal.

“This is part of a broader campaign on the left to begin the drumbeat of withdrawal from Afghanistan and Pakistan generally to change the direction there and make it about only providing aid and not about military engagement,” said Matt Bennett, a national security analyst for Third Way.

Human ‘rights’ activists are also turning their attention to the drone program in part because they say there’s no warning to innocent civilians who are in a targeted area.

Gabor Rona, international legal director of Human Rights First, a U.S.-based group that advocates universal rights and freedom, said large number of civilians are being unintentionally hit, harmed and killed.

“This is not only a violation of the international laws of war,” he said. “It’s bad policy.”

The laws of war allow individuals who are engaged in hostilities to be targeted in an armed conflict but strictly prohibit actions against those not engaged.

“Even when you’re attacking a legitimate military objective, you cannot cause civilian casualties that exceed the value of a legitimate military attack,” Rona said.

However, Human Rights First Spokesman Brenda Bowser Soder said the group is not currently considering legal action. Presumably not stripping coalition forces of their most potent weapon should make us be grateful to you, eh, Brenda?

Got that one wrong, traitor.

Two high-value Al Qaeda operatives were killed on New Year’s Day this year in northern Pakistan as a result of Predator attacks. Usama al Kini and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan were wanted for their involvement in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed in the embassy bombings, including 12 Americans. The men sought refuge in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

“Our military fighting in Afghanistan has got to be able to pursue high level (operatives) who flee across the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan,” Bennett said.

On the presidential campaign trail, Obama had said that if he had legitimate intelligence about high-level Al Qaeda personnel he would not hesitate to act. And although there’s no formal agreement between the United States and Pakistan when it comes to Predator drone attacks, Pakistan more or less looks the other way.

Livingstone said even if high-value targets are killed in one of these drone attacks, Al Qaeda still can claim a “propaganda victory” because of the number of civilian casualties.

“So many of these guys surround themselves with collateral casualties,” Livingstone said, and large numbers of women and children are strategically placed around hotbeds of activity.

So there we have it. We try to play it clean against a dirty enemy who is aided and assisted by a fifth column of ‘useful idiots’ in our own midst. How long before the living postbox-mouthed Cherie Blair jumps on this bandwagon?