On the recordMay 17, 2012
I thank my friend. I rise to respectfully disagree with the amendment offered by a person for whom I have great respect. I know that he offers this amendment because he certainly wants to avoid a situation where our country arbitrarily takes innocent human life. I think he's right to have that concern, and I think it's one that is widely held. I think that the issue raised by this amendment is whether others can be entrusted with striking that same balance or whether the Congress should enact a unilateral prohibition against certain kinds of activities. When the decision-makers who operate these drone strikes make a decision, they have to strike this balance between our moral obligation to avoid arbitrary attacks on innocent people and our moral obligation to defend our country. And I think that they are capable of striking that balance, and I frankly think that a blanket prohibition against the use of these strikes--except in circumstances where we know the identity of the target--unduly restricts them in making that judgment. I certainly understand and sympathize with the goal of this amendment. But because I think it unduly restricts our options, I would urge its defeat.
