Rand Paul does something I (mostly) approve of

[MrFun]

This is an excellent point. In my mind, I am having a hard time distinguishing between a drone strike and a police sniper. I guess the difference is that one is Civilian authority and one is military. I believe that any population should be concerned when a military is asked to act against its own citizens. Now...give the FBI or local police drones and I think we may clear up the issue entirely.

Police killing innocent American bystanders with drones? Bring it.

[Aeson]

Actually, it would be more like asking the administration "will you categorically state that you can never lay a hand on your wife" then getting freaked out because the answer comes back that "hypothetically, there might be a possible situation in which laying a hand on your wife could be legally justified" and then twisting that to "they said its ok to beat your wife" and the hysteria dying down after it was clarified, for those who couldn't figure out the obvious, "yes, 'hypothetically, there might be a possible situation in which laying a hand on your wife could be legally justified' refers to self-defense, not just wailing on your wife because you felt like it or your team lost a game"

I'm glad you are beginning to see the problems with your analogy. As I said, I was simply extending your analogy of "drone strikes" to "beating wife". (It was you who offered this analogy with no qualifications.)

[Aeson]

In my mind, I am having a hard time distinguishing between a drone strike and a police sniper. I guess the difference is that one is Civilian authority and one is military.

That is one difference. One that is a bit concerning (unlike reg's), but not nearly so much as other blindingly obvious differences. To go back to MtG's analogy and your extension of it ... if your wife is holding a knife to your throat a hellfire missile is a very poor way to deal with it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I'm glad you are beginning to see the problems with your analogy. As I said, I was simply extending your analogy of "drone strikes" to "beating wife". (It was you who offered this analogy with no qualifications.)

The analogy is indirect - to the nature of the loaded question. Neither Bush nor Obama administrations have even hinted at extrajudicial executions of US citizens in the US - that's been a strawman born of the whining about al Awlaki.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It seems to me that you are saying that the President can act under his (for lack of a better term) "war fighting" authority, even in the absence of a declared war. This is consistent with what I have seen most Presidents do. Typically, most Americans, I would think, would want the President to act to defend the country even in the absence of declared war. The real difference here is that now we are talking about U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil.

You are, rightly, pointing out that Presidents has used this implied authority extensively...then you are extrapolating the scenario that is usually a foriegn combatant on foriegn soil to be the same as a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. Seems reasonable to do. However, I believe that there is a difference in those two scenarios. As an American, am I pejudiced toward Americans and our rights to due process? Well...yes I am. I think that if the President needs this express authority then he should ask Congress to grant it...something I believe they would do. In the absence of that express authority, then I would think that due process should prevail.

Due process doesn't apply in warfighting situations. It may apply when you deal with prisoners -e.g. Padilla and Lindh, but practically speaking, in a combat situation, it's for God to sort out.

This is an excellent point. In my mind, I am having a hard time distinguishing between a drone strike and a police sniper. I guess the difference is that one is Civilian authority and one is military. I believe that any population should be concerned when a military is asked to act against its own citizens. Now...give the FBI or local police drones and I think we may clear up the issue entirely.

I was thinking more a drone vs. a JDAM, 155 arty, TLAM, or any other sort of standoff weapon in a combat situation. A lot of people seem to have a reaction to drones, whereas in my mind, it's just a different delivery system. As far as the military dealing with US citizens, I'm far more concerned with something like a Blackwater in New Orleans to duck around Posse Comitatus while being illegally shielded from liability. If I was in an area where regular military was engaged in law enforcement, I'd have a friendly conversation with my nephews (since they're a younger generation than my brothers. ) If it's somebody like a Blackwater or Xe or whatever the **** they call themselves now, my reaction would be a bit different.

[Aeson]

The analogy is indirect - to the nature of the loaded question.

I already addressed this in my initial response to you. You are no more correct in drawing an analogy between the form of the questions now than you were then.

"Do you promise to stop beating your wife" is the prototypical loaded question. No doubt why you chose it as the analog. The language suggests that the wife is already being beat. A yes or no answer would indicate that the wife has been beat.

"Do you promise not to beat your wife" does not suggest that the wife is already being beat. A yes answer indicates that the wife will never be beat. A no answer indicates that the possibility of beating the wife remains open. It is certainly not loaded in the same way as the analog you offered.

[Sava]

"Do you promise to stop beating your wife"

ONLY IF THAT ***** SUCK MY DICK