Dev F, on 07 March 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:
I have many concerns about the president's drone campaign, but this isn't really one of them. In fact, I'm more concerned with the fact that "American citizen"/"American soil" is where people have chosen to draw the line on this issue. I think it's a dangerous misunderstanding of moral and constitutional principles that actually leaves more people and situations on the wrong side of the line.
Actually I do agree, but no one is listening when we speak up against drone attacks on foreigners. That doesn't make it OK, but for me, I see the discussion beginning where Americans have a self-interest. Ask Americans about foreigners [terrorists allegedly] and they will, almost to a man or woman, talk about American national security. The debate gets sidetracked immediately. I feel you have to begin, in this country, with a debate over American citizens on American land. That grabs our attention. That's not so much national security and it is civil liberties We can actually have a debate then, and then expand it to the moral conclusion.
Americans are a self-interested lot. I say that as an American, so I don't mean it entirely as a negative, but we are all self-interested. It's part of our culture. The whole, make it on your own thing. We care about "our" rights and our freedom first. It's not pretty, but it is the way it is. [and I speak of Americans as a culture, not each and every individual. There are of course people in American who care about the same moral issues you speak of here so well.]
Thus, the debate I think we should be having is: What are the boundaries of the theater of war? What does it mean if the battlefield is expanded to encompass the entire world -- and anyone anywhere might end up as collateral damage? What does it mean if a military target can be anyone who works against our interests, regardless of whether they're waging an active military campaign against us? That's the kind of debate that will help protect the lives and due process rights of Americans and non-Americans alike. If we give all that up and assume that only Americans in America have any rights, we're giving up on most of the people who are actually in danger of dying from our drone attacks.
A debate that is long over due imo.
Ask all the detainees in Guantanamo, or the secret rendition sites, or the people we have disappeared all in the name of our national security. All done with no discussion with the people of the United States. All done in our names, but without our permission. And there is no end in sight.
Yes, there are serious moral issues to be discussed. I believe it begins with this one because it is one we can agree on almost immediately as a nation. Other lines can be drawn as we discuss it. The line has already come up between you and the members in this discussion--this is good and as it should be. We bgin with our own enlightened self-interest and expand it almost immediately to the interests of humanity.
QueenTiye, on 07 March 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:
Well, you know, Nonny, even a broke clock is right, twice a day. Rand Paul is RIGHT this time and he may never be right again. I already don't like him, since he's the clown who asserted that he would have fired Hilary for Bengazi. But for all that, he's both RIGHT on this issue, and RIGHT to actually filibuster. Truth is truth - and I don't overmuch care about the messenger. Or, if the house was on fire, would we sit still until someone better than Rand Paul came to tell us so?
Exactly. No one is forgetting who Rand Paul is on other issues. But, in this case, he actually took to the floor. He is actually speaking. The cameras were on him, and that is the whole point of a filibuster Now the nation is listening to this debate and debating amongst one another. We're not in the dark. The filibuster isn't silently done behind the curtain. It's loud and the world can listen in on how our democracy is supposed to work.
I don't even care if Paul was using it to elevate his name in national politics. He can have a self interest. We all do on most things. It's only important that we actually discuss this. The government is saying it can legally kill people in America with no due process. That's something we need to put some light on.
Rand Paul may be a broken clock [as QT so eloquently put it] but he is right on this issue. He is 100% right. Which also illustrates that no one is 100% right or wrong, or 100% evil or good. People are human, and while we may agree mostly with some, or disagree a lot with others, sometimes someone we never agree with says something we all should agree with.