Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Justin Amash Backs Up Rand Paul's Drone Position

After endorsing the use of drones to kill someone walking "out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash," Rand Paul has been justifiably taking heat. Now, Justin Amash as issued a tweet supporting Rand and his support of the Constitution. Amash didn't reference the party of the Constitution that negates trial by jury, if a drone is in the area.


  1. As a commenter noted in your previous post, I think this is just Rand coming up with a bad example. I don't believe the logic he is using is necessarily flawed.

    Here's an example that might serve his purpose better: let's say a man murders 10 people in a grocery store and the police start chasing him as he exits the store. Eventually they get into a shootout. Since the shootout has already been instigated, and the lives of the police and the murderer are already on the line, I don't think it would be insensible to use a drone strike.

    I don't know much about the area drone strike usually do damage to, so any possible civilian casualties would have to be taken into account and the strike should be dismissed if it's going to harm innocent bystanders. But my point in all of this is that the technology isn't the problem.


    1. What if he killed those people in self defense? If he turns out to be innocent, will the drone operator face murder charges? After all, he (drone operator) wasn't acting in self defense, like the police who had been shot at. Seems like a bit of over kill though, using a missile to kill one gunman. Also seems like a lot of money to spend on hypotheticals. Do the cops really have trouble dealing with nut jobs like that? They could just corner him in a cabin and burn it down.

    2. A third party can help out an individual in self-defense if they want. In a libertarian society, if A aggresses against B, and B's life is in danger, C certainly can defend B and attack A. So this is irrelevant for the matter at hand.

      If A was innocent, then it is B (the cops) who are aggressing against A. C has as little of a right (i.e., none) as B does to attack and kill A.

      Over-kill, lots of money, etc. is all off-topic. We are not talking about the efficiency of using drones, we are talking about the legitimacy.