As I recall VP Dick Cheney was willing on 9/11 to shoot down U.S. citizens in U.S. airspace without knowing who the enemy was and willing to accept all the collateral damage as legitimate (U.S. citizens). Presumedly the VP was using a calculus that weighed the lesser of two evils.
Rand Paul was suggesting that the U.S. government would target U.S. citizens on our sovereign land. VP Cheney might argue the other difference was that his action would have been defensive, not that of an aggressor or offensive in nature. Attorney General Holter more or less responded ... "Of course not ...". Senator Paul continued the circus of self-importance.
Is there really a difference. I do not think the weapon you use matters or determines the morality or immorality of the act.
The real question is how the U.S. military or military aid is used in any circumstance. What makes war or assassination or enabling others to do it for us legitimate? We do not seem to reflect on that question very deeply.
It strikes me that Rand Paul is just asking his neighbor a trick question... "Do you still beat your dog and other peoples dogs, whenever you please?"
If you never beat your dog you can hardly answer the question. If you only beat other peoples dogs you are still not a very nice person.
WI 1848 Forward: #Rand the Ridiculous - #RandPaul asks the wrong question! #Drones #WMDs Phony Wars & Interventions
No comments:
Post a Comment