3 ms·

Our thinking may be more in line than I believed, especially with the 2001 AUMF (So pleasant to discuss this with someone who knows what that is!). However I t

Our thinking may be more in line than I believed, especially with the 2001 AUMF (So pleasant to discuss this with someone who knows what that is!). However I think you're quick to dismiss Mr. Paul's actions. Even if it's 100% partisan politics (I'm more of the thought that this issue is at a nice intersection of convenience and personal belief for Paul) isn't any action better than no action? Since 2001 the stage has begun to be set for widespread drone and autonomous warfare, free of pesky human flesh and the laws that constrain it. Finally, we are getting some real, publicized (trending on twitter!) action to stem that tide. I say regardless of the motives, at this point support the cause as heartily as possible. We may not get another chance if this is swept under the rug (politics or otherwise). If congress poops out a diamond I'm not going to turn my nose at the sight of a little shit, pardon my french.

tptacek 14y ago
If you reread the last two grafs of the comment you just replied to, I made a case for why fiddly restrictions on drone strikes are actually counterproductive (they forestall the fix to the real problem, which is that we have to stop being in a war with a brand).
- pdeuchler 14y ago
  I guess we simply disagree then. I am of the opinion any action is beneficial at this point, though I can see (but not agree with :) ) your point.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Thank you for not calling me a statist thug. :)
    - jahmed 14y ago
      This is a perfect example of emoticons clarifying tone. Way to go people. :)
anigbrowl 14y ago
The thing is, he's asking the Executive Branch to do Congress' job for it. If he wants to see constraint's on the President's authority to take military action, then he should introduce legislation to either curb the use of drones or amend the AUMF, which currently grans the President extremely broad authority. Since 2001 the stage has begun to be set for widespread drone and autonomous warfare, free of pesky human flesh and the laws that constrain it. The civilian casualty rate from drone warfare is an awful lot lower than other kinds as far as I can see. It's a distinct improvement on aerial bombardment.

tptacek 14y ago

If you reread the last two grafs of the comment you just replied to, I made a case for why fiddly restrictions on drone strikes are actually counterproductive (they forestall the fix to the real problem, which is that we have to stop being in a war with a brand).

pdeuchler 14y ago
I guess we simply disagree then. I am of the opinion any action is beneficial at this point, though I can see (but not agree with :) ) your point.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Thank you for not calling me a statist thug. :)
  - jahmed 14y ago
    This is a perfect example of emoticons clarifying tone. Way to go people. :)

anigbrowl 14y ago

The thing is, he's asking the Executive Branch to do Congress' job for it. If he wants to see constraint's on the President's authority to take military action, then he should introduce legislation to either curb the use of drones or amend the AUMF, which currently grans the President extremely broad authority. Since 2001 the stage has begun to be set for widespread drone and autonomous warfare, free of pesky human flesh and the laws that constrain it. The civilian casualty rate from drone warfare is an awful lot lower than other kinds as far as I can see. It's a distinct improvement on aerial bombardment.