A Note On 'Drone Strikes', Ladies And Gentlemen

[malthaussen]

176. I am astonished that you would repeat such a statement, Sir.

The future is indeterminate, thus any absolute statement you might make of the future is logically fallacious. You are the Magistrate, Sir, you are not the Omnipotent. As it happens, I agree with you that the unlikelihood of such a strike approaches infinity, especially so long as Mr Assange remains within the confines of the City of London. Should he find himself in an isolated village in a Latin American country for which we have rather less than the tender regard which we exhibit to Great Britain, however, then I believe the odds might just start to descend to less-stratospheric limits. This assumes, of course, that our government dignifies Mr Assange with the status of a threat to our welfare, which is not evident.

You may be excused on two grounds: the first that it is common, in colloquial discourse, to say something will be, when what is meant is that you believe it will be (although I would have expected you to be more rigorous), and more to the point, that you are couching your argument in the context of common sense, by which context only such statement as "You know perfectly well that is true, pretend otherwise as hard as you may." can be defended.

The question of who will be targeted, and who will not, ultimately comes down to how much one trusts the leadership of this country. As I have witnessed, in my lifetime, my government target individuals for death with neither the advice nor the consent of my representatives, and whom I personally did not believe were deserving of such targeting (for as much as that is worth), I am less-than-sanguine that targets chosen in future will meet with my approval, or indeed be in my interests, or in the interests of my country. In this it would appear we differ, which is of no matter to individuals of good will.

As rights ultimately derive from consensus (unless, indeed, it is true that they derive from a Supreme Magistrate), I often see the relation of the citizen towards the executive power as an ongoing battle to assert and defend that which we would be sorry to lose. In such a battle, it seems to me, to surrender a point for the purposes of expediency, or indeed efficiency, is a retrograde step, which might reasonably be expected to erode further the principles which are held dear by most of us. But it is easy to make the contrary assertion, and point to historical occasions where some right or other has been temporarily suspended and then re-instituted after the end of the crisis. Regrettably for that argument, it is difficult to see, in the present context, when the current crisis will end. (And no, I will not quote Mr Franklin on this subject, since I am aware of the context in which he made his statement) Given the scope of the present crisis (unlimited), and the ephemeral nature of our objectives, does it not behoove us to be all the more diligent in seeing that the means we employ not create precedents that may provide opportunity for less-scrupulous executives to further enhance their authority at the expense of individual liberty?

-- Mal