Should we allow drone strikes on American soil?
I'm going to beat Unseen to this one!
So Eric Holder in a recent Congressional hearing has left the door open to preforming a drone strike against terrorists on American soil in an "extraordinary circumstance."
From CNN:
"Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.
He began to winnow the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect 'sitting at a cafe' if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
'No,' Holder replied."
Given the fact that there are people out there who want to kill us, who want to die for their cause, and who label themselves as an enemy to America, do you think that they Attorney General makes a valid point? Might there be some circumstance where a drone strike is the best option to prevent even more loss of life including that of law enforcement? Is he just plain wrong and this can't be permitted at all? As Senator Paul is now filibustering on the Senate floor and making the point, is there zero room for a lethal military/law enforcement drone strike on an individual? Might there still be a comparison with the use of lethal force by a police officer to a person that is known to be armed, dangerous, and looking to kill?
Tags: Congress, Constitution, Drone, Eric, Holder, law, strikes
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Barry Adamson on -
Agreed.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on -
Also, when thinking about the Constitution, we need to bear in mind that the founders weren't averse to updating it (how about The Bill of Rights?). They viewed it as a living and changeable document; why shouldn't we?
-
Permalink Reply by Arcus on -
To quote Clausewitz:
Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the Art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as War, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst.
Of course situations can be imagined in which the use of drones - or any other military weapon - could be used domestically. If Lincoln had had access to drones in the civil war, should he have restrained himself from using it?
-
Permalink Reply by Brazillian atheist on -
...believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect 'sitting at a cafe'...
Did he even considered the collateral damage? Because there will obviously be other people in the cafe...
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on
-
Well, that is certainly a big part of the question. I think that one can imagine cases where such collateral damage may be acceptable given the alternative. And we already have a real life example of accepting fairly large collateral damage as established policy...
Are you aware that on 9/11 the U.S. Federal government decided to allow hijacked airliners that threatened major targets to be shot down before they got to their targets. This could have killed perhaps 200 or more innocent people! And yet, while I would feel for the people in the plane "in the wrong place at the wrong time," I can see the logic and the necessity.
Some conspiracy theorists actually maintain that the airliner that went down in Pennsylvania was shot down.
-
Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on -
For 25 plus years before 9/11 the American government was warned that was going to happen, and they were told how to prevent it.
And they did nothing.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on
-
And they were told about 1000 other potential threats as well. Can you blame them for not preparing for every single one of them?
Even today, I don't think we have a satisfactory defense for this threat (one that everybody will agree is the best)?
Do you have one?
-
Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on
-
They were advised a long time ago to seal off the pilots and cockpit, so there was no access during flight.
Of course after the fact they've done exactly that.
-
Permalink Reply by Unseen on
-
Probably keeping Muslim men under 40 or anyone whose religion is Islam would eliminate 90% or more of contemporary threats, too.
Naturally, one responds to threats as they come along. Preparing for every conceivable way to hijack or explode an airplane would make flying too expensive for most people.
They'd start taking buses or trains instead, and the terrorists would start paying attention to those alternatives.
I don't know what you expect.
For example, what are they doing to guard against exploding clothing (shoes aside)?
-
Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on
-
Check with the Israel, they have a system that works.
-
Permalink Reply by BlackGravity on -
this shouldn't even be a question for the american people to ponder.
-
Permalink Reply by BlackGravity on
-
what don't you understand?.. american people should NEVER be a target for a drone strike on their home soil, that's just insane! and it's sad that there's even a debate about it.What kind of world is it when people have to wonder about being attacked by an unseen,unheard machine,being controlled by someone who could very well be your neighbor. This isn't the america i grew up in.
What's new today
Events
Forum
America - "Love It or Leave It"
Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by MikeLong 38 minutes ago. 32 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
The Republicans accelerate their downward spiral
Posted by Unseen on June 19, 2013 at 1:26pm 9 Comments 0 Likes
Videos
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
