Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
let's talk about the topic at hand that caused the filibuster which is that of
killing americans on u_s_ soil who have not been
uh... charged or tried or convicted of any crime
there's a legal
and a moral discussion to be had here and we can kind of to discuss our
thoughts on both and really we have before scenarios right we have
americans and not americans and then we have on u_s_ soil and not on u_s_ soil
and when you combine those two we have essentially four scenarios analyst them
in the order that broadly speaking louis they released controversial
four most people we talked to have but not everybody but generally the lease
controversial is the killing of foreigners
in foreign countries
subsequent to that is the killing of foreigners within the u_s_
then there's the killing of u_s_ citizens while abroad in situations
where you xx simply cannot
bring them into the legal system that we have here
and then we have this most recent version which is the killing of u_s_
citizens
within that u_s_ soil
really stand ups and i think a good place to start is
is it that different
to say that i'm against the killing of u_s_ citizens in the u_s_
but i'm not against the killing of u_s_ citizens if they're abroad for similar
types of
uh... nine
evidence that has not actually led to the charging of any crime at this point
brown what what you feel about this post i mean really
are you ok with some of the stuff
do you think that there is this greater good argument that what if it is this an
imminent threat than the president have to decide
it's really hard for me to say
uh... how i feel about it in the long term in terms of
using this overseas in foreign countries business i don't know what the long-term
effect is
uh... it could be really bad in terms of our relationships with other countries
right
but who knows how it's helping in the long term in terms of preventing
terrorist attacks and now domestic
uh... domestically
you know i i don't think they should be used we thought we anywhere in this
country so the are you what is the argument that would have to be made me
time dot i dot cuz i don't think there's any argument
for using them in this country other than for surveillance
i people using them we feel we shouldn't matter because you have the presence
here in the u_s_ to do whatever is necessary to apprehend anyone who might
be in the country presumably
and if you use a german killed and that means you know where they are well
that's a big does a line really exist where if the crime is so imminent
that it is a minute away
presumably right there you have a law enforcement situation and it's not a
planned killing baseball for the signature to standard law enforcement
situation if you have a full day and you know where the person is
which you would need to know in order to to drown them
does that not mean you have enough time to arrest them based on the suspicion
the evidence you have for the crime they are going to connect
does this middle ground exists in a time
where it would make sense to say
we can really get to them in time for an arrest
but it is an imminent threat and we've been only solution is to drown
uh... i think that if to use your example it wouldn't be so much that we
can get an arrest but we would be putting our own
law enforcement officials are soldiers in so much potential harm that we don't
want to do that i think that we could come up with a hypothetical dave and i
were talking off areas through about one possible one it would be pretty detailed
where we would actually agree that it might be justified but i think the
relevant part here
isn't whether we can think of a hypothetical where this would be
justified according lousy no no i think the question here is whether there
should be separation of powers where it's not just the president that gets to
decide so if you have a
our court but three pant three judge panel icons like a louis about
or another
uh... part of the government nine the executive branch to have to go ahead
with this before the president actually presses the button to go through with it
i think that we could probably come to a consensus that even those is very
unlikely
if it does come to it wouldn't be just one person deciding we should discuss
lewis also how does a supply approx applied to a cyber crime type of
scenario for example
if we had intel actually of we had reliable intelligence that there was an
individual
uh... who
was going to
shut the power off
for two-thirds of the country two hundred million people we know that will
lead to many deaths we know lied to death mir
crimes being committed starvation
uh... not being able to get medical care exit to get a big deal two-thirds of the
country losing out your city
uh... does it make sense did to draw and that person
to do what we've been in that particular case where that it is you know they're
in a building
listen we can't even find than in the building within a drone the building
there may be some innocent civilians who died
but two hundred million people without power possibly for for a month
two months
uh... what about that could does this go beyond just
via the the the traditional violent threats
where you know that's a pretty crazy hypothetical i mean i guess my argument
would be that shouldn't have to come to that in
uh... i i think
we should be able to respond quickly enough where that situation
should never happen
okay we're going to continue talking about this and we'll have plenty more