The New Republic

Yes, inside America, for Americans, the rules of engagement are different. Over 100,000 Japanese Americans would differ, but I quibble. During WWII, we killed the enemy, Germans and Japanese, citizens and non-citizens alike, wherever they were found, and by whatever methods were available. Are we not at war? Are we not faced with the same threat, by enemies within and without? Is Rand suggesting that we are not at war, that we do not face that threat? Or is he suggesting that Obama would turn the power of the state against loyal American citizens?

- rayward

March 6, 2013 at 8:40pm

Had we known the jetliners were about to hit the World Trade towers the only legitimate call would have been to blow them out of the sky, does anyone dispute this? But somehow it would have been ok to do it if it were a fighter jet but bad because it would be terrible if done by a drone? If anything a drone hit on a jetliner would be more merciful because there is not just one drone pilot, it is a team of people, a fight pilot would have to live with pulling the trigger on the airliner and then watch it plunge to the ground. I swear to God Rand Paul is a child, with childish notions. Hundreds of innnocent American lives would perish in just such a situation and with no trial but had those planes been shot out of the air thousands more people would have lived. If a drone would spare some unfortunate fighter pilot a lifetime of torment then I say go with a drone. The point is you can't limit the use of a technology that can save lives because...something something no pilot. Drones can be stored at Teterboro or many small airports for just such emergency situations where we know a plane has been hijacked and is a clear threat, scrambling jets from far away or use a local drone. At some point you have to have faith in the US military hierarchy that they will perform due diligence and not randomly kill civilians for kicks. if you have genuine concern you want Brennan because he wants to move the program to Defense and away from CIA where everything is hid behind a cloak of top secret. Then when it goes to Defense you bring in Hagel and have him set out the policy. we can't have a clear idea on what the limits are because we can't possibly know of every contigency such a thing might bring it about. Look, using a drone on American soil will be a huge freaking deal. The same with using a fighter jet. It will only take the most extreme and unlikely circumstances to bring it about but as with 9/11 sometimes you don't know what those circumstances will be beforehand. As it is I don't see drones shooting fleeing burglars anytime soon (as in ever) no matter who is President.

- blackton

March 6, 2013 at 10:12pm

As usual Blackton post is right on. We need more sane posters like him on every thread. As far as the title assigned to MACGILLIS article is concerned, I'd like to ask: Who is stopping Rand from talking about drones? How the Rand family drones on.

- arnon1

March 6, 2013 at 11:26pm

Sorry, blackton, but your hypothetical is overdetermined. 'Had we known the jetliners were about to hit the WTC...' Yeah, but we DIDN'T know, and that's the point. We never know these things. Yours is the identical argument that Alan Dershowitz used in support of torture in certain circumstances. 'If torture can prevent a terrorist act with mass casualties...' And anyway, the 9/11 example sort of misses the point. The law ALREADY sanctions the government's use of deadly force in circumstances where such killing is required to prevent further loss of life. Had we known with a high degree of certainty that the 9/11 planes were going to hit the WTC and that shooting them down would prevent that tragedy, then shooting the planes down would have been justified both legally and morally and the means of shooting them down, whether by F-16, SAM or drone would be beside the point. The reason people like Rand Paul and Alec McGillis are rightfully concerned about domestic drones is that the cases when the government might be tempted to employ them are nothing like your 9/11 hypothetical. If a 'bad guy' is within reach of a drone but out of reach of police on the ground, then the chances are he is no immediate threat to anyone. If the authorities have strong reason to believe that he is likely to produce mayhem in the near future, then they should arrest him and make their case against him in court. Assassinating him on suspicion, however, is a GROSS violation of his right to due process. So, yeah, while you can devise plausible scenarios where deadly force is indicated and drones are the most practical means of delivering that force--a man dug in on a high point with a high caliber, long range rifle that makes it risky for chopper-born snipers to fly too close, for instance--such scenarios don't really get at what is unique about drones or why they make people nervous.

- AaronW

March 7, 2013 at 8:02am

People blanch at the idea of UAVs being used against Americans because they have been presented as weapons of war. But the police use weapons of war all the time, even in circumstances in which they are not, strictly, necessary. They use deadly force to kill armed suspects that pose a threat to police officers or innocent bystanders. They frequently use these tools inappropriately, but few today say that police should never use automatic weapons or armored personnel carriers against American citizens. We tend to accept that mistakes will be made with these tools, but on balance they are beneficial, and later mistakes can be handled by the courts. Holder's statement that American police might use armed drones "in extreme circumstances" seems to me perfectly sensible. They can use an M16 against Americans "in extreme circumstances" as it is now, and few bat an eye. How is this any different?

- zuludown

March 7, 2013 at 12:27pm

Agree entirely with Blackton. This is a phony controversy. No, Rand Paul isn't on to anything. This whole drone business got started because of the "American citizen" angle. As if that matters when it comes to enemy combatants. Would it have mattered if Osama bin Laden had been born in America? Would that have made us think twice about hitting him with a drone strike if we had had the opportunity? I don't think so. Well, Awlaki was a junior bin Laden. So, this isn't keeping me up at night, and I don't know why it's keeping up Rachel Maddow and friends. As for all this business about a drone strike on U.S. soil, this is not an actual issue. It's purely theoretical, hypothetical, prompted by Maddow and Paul asking, "Well, if they can kill an American abroad, what's next?" To which the only truthful and responsible answer is, Well, we don't know what extreme circumstances might arise that would call for extreme measures, so we can't rule it out. Fine. It's not a real issue.

- JakeH

March 7, 2013 at 2:44pm

"Is Rand suggesting that we are not at war, that we do not face that threat? Or is he suggesting that Obama would turn the power of the state against loyal American citizens? " ______ To answer your question Ray. Yes. Rand is suggesting the later over the former. But it appears that most of the commenters here share very little to no fear about the expansive use of military hardware, technology or policies WITHIN the USA.______ It appears from the comments that some here are very sanguine about expanding armed & spy drone technology within the US, the Patriot Act, and that the enormous security apparatus operating under the euphemistically titled Department of Homeland Security should have every weapon and technology at their disposal to dispose of "questionable" individuals. Quite frankly I find that disturbing when we, as citizens, are literally giving away our individual rights and freedoms for the perception of security in a time of "war"._____ That Obama has simply signed on the most questionable of the Bush Doctrine policies and expanded them in some cases is disturbing. Our existential War on Terror will never have an ending when people continue to believe in the perceived threats that may or may not come. Drones used within our borders do not constitute an expansion of preventing future terror attacks from jihadists but will instead morph into something else.____ Lastly, that anyone using the argument that saving life of one US fighter pilot is worth more than actually protecting the civil liberties of US citizens within the borders of the USA exhibits a flippant disrespect for the very liberties the US soldier is sworn to protect and defend._____ Where does the line get drawn? When every person is jailed after being deemed a political dissident or too religiously fervent that they are then legitimate targets?____ "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

- singlspeed

March 7, 2013 at 5:28pm