The Absolute Knowledge of Politicians: Getting a Little Rand-ie

I won’t say I disagree with Paul Rand nor will I say that I agree with him regarding his position on the use of a drone in killing an American. It’s not that I don’t know where I stand; it is because I assess Rand’s statement as naïve and too commonly representative of the level and depth of intellect amongst politicians. I suppose it’s possible that Rand doesn’t absolutely or literally mean what he says and that he is merely expressing the general thesis of his position and that that may just be a politically expedient and popular sound bite. So if the statement is just a ploy to bolster his image among supporters and a hope to garner some people to his cadre who find this an attractive issue to obsess about then it is what we can expect and rely on politicians to do.

On the other hand, if Rand firmly has a conceptual framework of absolute surety and understanding then I can’t just disagree with him. Because by just a simple disagreeing position I would allow that others would carry with it a presumed logical inference that comes with just inverting the text of his position. That Rand cannot conceive of the foolish fallacy that such ‘absolute’ beliefs and doctrines represent and ultimately plague oneself on at some point in the future then he would seem to be yet another ‘principled’ politician who cannot cope with or deal with the complexity and nuance of reality.

Now I recognize that it is an American principle and Constitutional right to ‘due process’ and that the government should not be given the freedom to kill a citizen without adhering to our legal framework. But here is where I diverge from the absolutist view, the "There is no valid legal precedent to justify the killing of an American citizen not engaged in combat" would imply that you agree with the meaning of the statement, have a common understanding of the terms and the context of the statement, and that the statement is in fact true or factually correct. If on no other basis then the word ‘combat’, I would have to regard Rand’s view as simplistic. I don’t concede that even he knows what he thinks he means by combat. Do you know what he means? Do you know what you would mean? And if you are ‘absolutely’ sure about what you and Rand mean, and then are you also on the side that there are no circumstances or conditions under which the US government would be justified under our laws to kill an American citizen?

Lets’ assume you are and thus no American citizen can be justifiably killed outside of their engagement in combat. Is an American citizen overseas; completely inaccessible to US law enforcement or judicial processes or agencies; fully and totally committed to supporting, promoting and enabling violent actions against the US either domestically or internationally; and operating only indirectly through other individuals’ actions and never physically engaged in a direct act but perhaps only funding those activities which required that support so as to affect the killing of Americans; would the US government be violating our laws? If you think there is no legitimacy in such a governmental act than you are perfectly encamped in the absolutist world-view.

It may also mean that you are only able to consider and factor in one premise in evaluating a topic.  Are there no other Constitutional issues, obligations, requirements, rights and responsibilities that come into play on this question besides the single isolated discussion point that Rand is so earnest about?