8 ms·

Personally, even in your far-fetched scenario, I would prefer a 'no'. It would have to be much further far-fetched for the only answer to that threat to be a dr

Personally, even in your far-fetched scenario, I would prefer a 'no'. It would have to be much further far-fetched for the only answer to that threat to be a drone. Should we arm some in air drones for such a scenario? All sorts of slippery slope. The answer should just be a no.

tptacek 14y ago
Holder himself says the scenario is far fetched. Which is why one wishes Rand Paul would ask better questions that don't admit to far-fetched answers. But that aside: the irrational fear of drones is a little crazymaking. Not because armed drones are a good thing, but because conventional warfare is so awful. Soldiers deployed in theater are basically teenagers with combat rifles, and, not to put too fine a point on it, they routinely shoot and kill innocent people and there's practically nothing we can do about it because modern warfare is such a complete clusterfuck. You know you're talking to someone who does not quite grok how bad war is in 2013 when they use words like "battlefield". What battlefield? Since at least 1914, your battlefield is my suburban hometown.
- jgon 14y ago
  Have you been watching the filibuster? Because in the 20 minutes I have been watching it Rand Paul has explicitly claimed that his concern is not with using drones on a US citizen in the event of imminent harm no less than 5 times. He has given several examples of the exact nature of the military downing a hijacked aircraft. He has several times said all he wants is explicit clarification that drones will not be used against non-combatants, which people piloting a hijacked aircraft would clearly not be. Given this, how do you reconcile his repeated public statements with your contention that this is his only concern?
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Paul's own words prior to the filibuster, from his written question to John Brennan, to which Holder responded: The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored. (Em. from original).
    - jgon 14y ago
      Right, this is explicitly why I referenced what he is currently saying. He has said multiple times in the now 40 minutes I have spent watching that all he wants is explicit clarification that drones will not be used on American soil against noncombatant US citizens. He has publicly said if he receives this he will end the filibuster. I am discussing what he is saying right now, during the filibuster, in an article discussing the filibuster. Claiming his previous statements accurately reflect what he is currently filibustering over is incorrect.
      - aaronblohowiak 14y ago
        What if they are used against combatant US citizens but there is collateral damage? Is that acceptable? If not, why do we accept it overseas?
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        What part of 'the Administration ... has no intention of doing so' does he (and do you) not understand? Is he asking Holder to make definitive statements about the future?
        PKop 14y ago
        No. "No intention" does not imply "No constitutional right to". The issue is about due process. Leaving it up to the whims of leaders is not following the rule of law.
        tptacek 14y ago
        What do you think "due process" mean? I'm not asking rhetorically. I am literally interested in what you've learned about the meaning of the term "due process".
        nateabele 14y ago
        In this context, I don't see why the answer would need to be any more detailed or nuanced than the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page. Criminal prosecution is governed by law, and arbitrarily executing citizens (specifically, per Senator Paul's language over the course of the filibuster, those who are not actively engaged in combat) is a pretty direct abrogation of rights granted by said law. What's the real question here?
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    His repeated statements are designed to mislead you, and they seem to be working. Holder told him the administration has no intention of doing the thing he says he's concerned about, so why is he still concerned about it? A: I am concerned that you are going to do [something bad]. Are you? B: What? No, I have never done that, I am certainly not going to do that. A: WHY WON'T YOU GIVE ME A STRAIGHT ANSWER?
    - ameister14 14y ago
      A: I'm concerned you have the power to do x. Do you have such a power? B: Well, I haven't used it yet, and probably won't.
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        I responded to the question in the grandparent post. If Rand Paul is now asking Holder whether the has powers to deploy drones on American soil, then I'd say the answer is Yes, and Holder gave ample clarification of that.
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      "What? No, I have never done that, I am certainly not going to do that." Holder said nothing of the kind.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. ... The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.
        Turing_Machine 14y ago
- jackpirate 14y ago
  >there's practically nothing we can do about it because modern warfare is such a complete clusterfuck. One thing we could do is stop deploying soldiers...

tptacek 14y ago

Holder himself says the scenario is far fetched. Which is why one wishes Rand Paul would ask better questions that don't admit to far-fetched answers. But that aside: the irrational fear of drones is a little crazymaking. Not because armed drones are a good thing, but because conventional warfare is so awful. Soldiers deployed in theater are basically teenagers with combat rifles, and, not to put too fine a point on it, they routinely shoot and kill innocent people and there's practically nothing we can do about it because modern warfare is such a complete clusterfuck. You know you're talking to someone who does not quite grok how bad war is in 2013 when they use words like "battlefield". What battlefield? Since at least 1914, your battlefield is my suburban hometown.

jgon 14y ago
Have you been watching the filibuster? Because in the 20 minutes I have been watching it Rand Paul has explicitly claimed that his concern is not with using drones on a US citizen in the event of imminent harm no less than 5 times. He has given several examples of the exact nature of the military downing a hijacked aircraft. He has several times said all he wants is explicit clarification that drones will not be used against non-combatants, which people piloting a hijacked aircraft would clearly not be. Given this, how do you reconcile his repeated public statements with your contention that this is his only concern?
- tptacek 14y ago
  Paul's own words prior to the filibuster, from his written question to John Brennan, to which Holder responded: The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored. (Em. from original).
  - jgon 14y ago
    Right, this is explicitly why I referenced what he is currently saying. He has said multiple times in the now 40 minutes I have spent watching that all he wants is explicit clarification that drones will not be used on American soil against noncombatant US citizens. He has publicly said if he receives this he will end the filibuster. I am discussing what he is saying right now, during the filibuster, in an article discussing the filibuster. Claiming his previous statements accurately reflect what he is currently filibustering over is incorrect.
    - aaronblohowiak 14y ago
      What if they are used against combatant US citizens but there is collateral damage? Is that acceptable? If not, why do we accept it overseas?
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      What part of 'the Administration ... has no intention of doing so' does he (and do you) not understand? Is he asking Holder to make definitive statements about the future?
      - PKop 14y ago
        No. "No intention" does not imply "No constitutional right to". The issue is about due process. Leaving it up to the whims of leaders is not following the rule of law.
        tptacek 14y ago
        What do you think "due process" mean? I'm not asking rhetorically. I am literally interested in what you've learned about the meaning of the term "due process".
        nateabele 14y ago
        In this context, I don't see why the answer would need to be any more detailed or nuanced than the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page. Criminal prosecution is governed by law, and arbitrarily executing citizens (specifically, per Senator Paul's language over the course of the filibuster, those who are not actively engaged in combat) is a pretty direct abrogation of rights granted by said law. What's the real question here?
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  His repeated statements are designed to mislead you, and they seem to be working. Holder told him the administration has no intention of doing the thing he says he's concerned about, so why is he still concerned about it? A: I am concerned that you are going to do [something bad]. Are you? B: What? No, I have never done that, I am certainly not going to do that. A: WHY WON'T YOU GIVE ME A STRAIGHT ANSWER?
  - ameister14 14y ago
    A: I'm concerned you have the power to do x. Do you have such a power? B: Well, I haven't used it yet, and probably won't.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      I responded to the question in the grandparent post. If Rand Paul is now asking Holder whether the has powers to deploy drones on American soil, then I'd say the answer is Yes, and Holder gave ample clarification of that.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    "What? No, I have never done that, I am certainly not going to do that." Holder said nothing of the kind.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. ... The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.
      - Turing_Machine 14y ago
jackpirate 14y ago
>there's practically nothing we can do about it because modern warfare is such a complete clusterfuck. One thing we could do is stop deploying soldiers...