4 ms·
The question I would most like to see asked and debated (in Congress and here) is whether there is or should be any legal distinction between drones and more tr
by jarrett 14y ago
The question I would most like to see asked and debated (in Congress and here) is whether there is or should be any legal distinction between drones and more traditional weapons. Here's why.
It has long been established that the federal government (like state and local governments) may, in certain limited circumstances, kill a US citizen on US soil without any formal process. Some familiar examples: a gun-to-the-head hostage situation, a mass shooter, and a person opening fire on law enforcement. In these scenarios, the perpetrator would typically be killed by law enforcement.
There are also circumstances in which the US military may kill US citizens on US soil. The Civil War is perhaps the best example. The Confederacy was not deemed a sovereign nation. Its soldiers were deemed US citizens engaged in criminal activity. When the US armed forces killed Confederate soldiers, they were killing US citizens without trial. I say this without an ounce of condemnation. It is just the bleak historical reality.
So it is clear that both federal law enforcement and the military may at times kill US citizens on US soil. But in the examples I've given, drones were not used.
Which returns me to my original question: Should drones somehow be treated differently? What about manned aircraft? Artillery?
- tptacek 14y agoI think that's an entirely reasonable question. Personally, I am less scared of drones than of conventional weapons, which tend to be deployed in the arms of mammals who get twitchy and fire them irrationally out of fear, excitement, or anger.
- Kliment 14y agoTrouble is, the same mammals operate drones, with the difference that there is no physical danger to them that would justify it.
- mpyne 14y agoWhich consequently makes it impossible to use the doctrine of self-defense to try and justify homicide after-the-fact. What's worse for a potential murderer is that all of the evidence they had available for them to make a decision is also available to others afterwards, all of the movements they make are recorded, etc. Physical danger is not the panacea you make it out to be. Physical danger is what allows trigger-happy pilots to be trigger-happy without consequence. You don't want these pilots to be in physical danger.
- philwelch 14y agoSince the Confederate states were dropped from the Union and later readmitted over time, that's not a crystal clear interpretation. There's a case to be made that the Confederacy seceded only to be reconquered by force.
- raleec 14y agoI'm not sure what the process was for renouncing one's citizenship during that time, but the vast majority of the Confederate soldiers were born in the Union, making them citizens. The political designation of where they were fighting is less significant, and actually makes this a better analogy for an American Citizen fighting in a foreign land against the American Govt.