[ExI] Rand Paul Filibuster

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

>> A storm in a teacup. Yesterday Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a very
>> short letter to Sen. Rand Paul and said, "Does the president have the
>> authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in
>> combat on American soil? The answer is no."
>
>
> > What does "engaged in combat" mean?
>

I think the meaning is clear. A terrorist holding 20 first graders hostage
and threatening to kill them would be engaging in combat. If a FBI sniper
got a clear shot and put a bullet through the terrorist's brain before he
hurt anyone I would have no objection and i doubt you would either. If they
determined that a small drone could kill the terrorist with less
possibility of collateral damage than a sniper could (although I doubt that
would be the case in most situations, at least not with existing drone
technology) then I don't see a moral dilemma; I don't think drones are
inherently more immoral than snipers. The moral technology is the one that
kills the most bad guys and the fewest good guys.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130308/64dfb5b7/attachment.html>