[ExI] Rand Paul Filibuster

[Kelly Anderson]

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:25 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

What the federal government, especially the CIA, can do inside the
USA, and what law enforcement can do are two very different things in
our system. The difference matters because it goes to a separation of
powers. While the FBI has snipers, they were deployed lethally at Ruby
Ridge, for example. Most of that kind of work is done by SWAT teams
under more local control. This is as it should be imho. Shooting
people who are actively committing crimes, especially violent crimes
against other citizens, is entirely appropriate. Crime prevention is
not generally a mandate of the military, though exceptions have been
made in overseas operations relating to the "wars" on terrorism and
drugs. Domestic crime is not a military concern. The Department of
Homeland Security along with the Patriot Act of course muddies these
waters considerably.

-Kelly