<story><title>Rand Paul filibustering over drones</title><url>http://washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-filibustering-over-drones-i-will-not-let-obama-shred-the-constitution/article/2523425</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>tptacek</author><text>Rand Paul asked a stupid question†† of Eric Holder, one of the top lawyers in the USG, and received a predictably stupid answer. That question, distilled: &quot;is there any conceivable situation in which drones could be used to attack US citizens on US soil&apos;. How could the answer to that question be anything but yes? All you have to do is imagine a far-fetched scenario in which an al Qaeda terrorist who happens to be a US citizen is going to kill hundreds of Americans, imminently, but for an intervention that will only be effective via drone strike.&lt;p&gt;A simpler way to frame this that hundreds of people have now pointed out, which has the helpful property of extracting the scary alien new &quot;drones&quot;† from the equation: the authority Holder is claiming for the administration is the same as the one that would allow them to down a jetliner hurtling towards the Sears Tower: an intervention only available to the military.&lt;p&gt;There were good questions available to Rand Paul before he decided to prematurely declare victory over common sense. Two I can come up with:&lt;p&gt;* Does the administration claim the right to use military resources to attack US citizens on US soil if compelling evidence exists that they are al Qaeda terrorist when no specific evidence exists that such a person plans to imminently attack the US? Can the US use an airstrike against an al Qaeda terrorist who is a US citizen simply to keep them from &quot;getting away&quot;?&lt;p&gt;* Does the administration claim the right to use airstrikes against al Qaeda terrorists of any nationality when a reasonable person could infer a likelihood that such a strike would cause harm to Americans in the vicinity of the strike?&lt;p&gt;There are more good questions, I&apos;m sure. &quot;Could there ever be a case when...&quot; is literally the &quot;ticking time bomb&quot; question; the dumbest of all questions.&lt;p&gt;† &lt;i&gt;Scared kids in combat boots with M16s have done far more damage to innocent lives, both at home and abroad, than drones will ever do; drones are often a way of affecting concern for the lives of people &apos;like us&apos; while ignoring the safety of civilians and servicemembers on the ground.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;†† &lt;i&gt;&quot;What stupid question?&quot; This one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335285&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335285&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/i&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pdeuchler</author><text>I know you&apos;re trying to be a realist about this, but there&apos;s honestly no excuse for backing down on your morals.&lt;p&gt;We are not &lt;i&gt;CONSTITUTIONALLY&lt;/i&gt; at war with any nation. In fact, we are not even in the process of congressionally (i.e. &lt;i&gt;CONSTITUTIONALLY&lt;/i&gt;) authorized military engagements.&lt;p&gt;So, then. If we are proper citizens of this Earth and respect the rights of our fellow man, who we all believe to be equal, do we allow the use of pre-emptive force, even non-lethal, outside of our borders?&lt;p&gt;I honestly don&apos;t see any other answer than an emphatic &quot;No&quot;. Any other answer leads down a slippery slope, no matter the incline (if you will). I don&apos;t plan on supporting any slippery slope that I&apos;m standing at the bottom of.</text></comment>
<story><title>Rand Paul filibustering over drones</title><url>http://washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-filibustering-over-drones-i-will-not-let-obama-shred-the-constitution/article/2523425</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>tptacek</author><text>Rand Paul asked a stupid question†† of Eric Holder, one of the top lawyers in the USG, and received a predictably stupid answer. That question, distilled: &quot;is there any conceivable situation in which drones could be used to attack US citizens on US soil&apos;. How could the answer to that question be anything but yes? All you have to do is imagine a far-fetched scenario in which an al Qaeda terrorist who happens to be a US citizen is going to kill hundreds of Americans, imminently, but for an intervention that will only be effective via drone strike.&lt;p&gt;A simpler way to frame this that hundreds of people have now pointed out, which has the helpful property of extracting the scary alien new &quot;drones&quot;† from the equation: the authority Holder is claiming for the administration is the same as the one that would allow them to down a jetliner hurtling towards the Sears Tower: an intervention only available to the military.&lt;p&gt;There were good questions available to Rand Paul before he decided to prematurely declare victory over common sense. Two I can come up with:&lt;p&gt;* Does the administration claim the right to use military resources to attack US citizens on US soil if compelling evidence exists that they are al Qaeda terrorist when no specific evidence exists that such a person plans to imminently attack the US? Can the US use an airstrike against an al Qaeda terrorist who is a US citizen simply to keep them from &quot;getting away&quot;?&lt;p&gt;* Does the administration claim the right to use airstrikes against al Qaeda terrorists of any nationality when a reasonable person could infer a likelihood that such a strike would cause harm to Americans in the vicinity of the strike?&lt;p&gt;There are more good questions, I&apos;m sure. &quot;Could there ever be a case when...&quot; is literally the &quot;ticking time bomb&quot; question; the dumbest of all questions.&lt;p&gt;† &lt;i&gt;Scared kids in combat boots with M16s have done far more damage to innocent lives, both at home and abroad, than drones will ever do; drones are often a way of affecting concern for the lives of people &apos;like us&apos; while ignoring the safety of civilians and servicemembers on the ground.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;†† &lt;i&gt;&quot;What stupid question?&quot; This one: &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335285&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335285&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/i&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Lost_BiomedE</author><text>Personally, even in your far-fetched scenario, I would prefer a &apos;no&apos;. It would have to be much further far-fetched for the only answer to that threat to be a drone.&lt;p&gt;Should we arm some in air drones for such a scenario? All sorts of slippery slope. The answer should just be a no.</text></comment>