What I claim to want is for Senate rules to be brought in line with House rules – no “unlimited debate,” no filibusters.
And what I claim to really want is the Senate abolished, but that’s another discussion.
The Senators from the Big Empty are united in opposition.
So the lesson to dissidents is stay in the US. Don’t flee the country you profess hatred for or you’ll be al-awlaki’ed without any oversight. Keep your children here too.
I generally have nothing good to say about Rand Paul, but kudos to him for going through with a good old fashion filibuster. Thirteen hours and no bathroom break – that’s something right there.
. . . is spelled with just one “l,” actually.
I think many of the Presidents supporters, including myself see the problem with doing away with due process in any form. What if Palin got in? I dont want someone like that having the power to kill at will.
And this just in! Rand Paul triumphs, crushed Justice Dept wimpers in surrender!
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/07/1687721/holder-paul-drones/
Sen Pauls response reflects the generous good nature for which he is so widely beloved.
Late update: rumors that Eric Holder will commit seppuku in the Rose Garden are unfounded. Its winter, and the Rose Garden is closed.
The legalese wording “not engaged in combat” is easily handwaved away. The executive branch is still saying they can use the tactic without proving any charge to anybody.
In the most unlikely event that an American citizen/terrorist is in the country and is about to attack, and the only way to stop him is to use a drone attack (assuming Chuck Norris is unavailable) then Obama by God better disregard the Constitution!
He can then throw himself on the mercy of the House. Republicans have been very understanding and forgiving as regard Executive overreach. At least, until recently.
Except that wasn’t the question. The question is whether the targeting of suspects (and those foolish enough to be around them) by military drones would be legal/allowed on US soil. NOT whether we can shoot at someone about to attack - whether we can blow up a house and all in it because they are suspected terrorists.
You know - all of those issues others have brought up about the War on Terror in other places.
It would be nice if more on the Left would have supported the questioning, but lets face it - partisanship is partisanship.
[cue the final scene of Stephen King’s/Richard Bachman’s The Running Man] [no, no, the book]
Now, this particular line of reasoning offered by Sen. Apall…
Speaking as someone who has been bitching loyally for…a long time…perhaps I am meant to be reassured that Sen Paul has my back. Swell. Groovy.
The question was asked and answered long before Rand Paul came on the scene. You do not have the energy of more on the Left because many on the Left see this for what it is. Could maybe you tell me why drone strikes are so much more worrisome than stuffing graham crackers down somebody’s throat until they choke to death, or, maybe, shooting them with a cheap bullet?
Except that it has not been answered on this subject, Holder was waffling, and at times there are abuses of police power that must be kept in check.
It is delightful that a darling of the fringe Right is on this subject now, usually we have to rely on the Left to keep an eye out for us.
Drone strikes are more worrisome due to their tendency to pick a bit of collateral damage. They are also currently used to kill suspects, not just convicted criminals. The use of drones in the US to kill would be stating that we have decided that it is OK to kill US citizens suspected of a crime within our borders.
Now, we have already stated that we are willing to kill suspects outside of our borders, but the good senator wanted to know if we were going to bring that war home with us.
We would hope that the Posse Commitus stuff would keep the government in check (at least on a legal basis), but sometimes someone needs to ask the question - and this administration has not, sadly, been a font of openness on some of the ways that they conduct business.
I must say, its heartening to see how important transparency has become since Obama was elected. Wasn’t that long ago the idea was derided by very serious people. A President in war time can’t conduct policy with Congress looking over his shoulder all the time. Issues of security, for instance. We have to assume that the President has information we don’t have, and maybe shouldn’t have. Commander in Chief, and all that.
Obama changed all that. Now a President must declare his policy in advance of making a decision he hasn’t the slightest intention of making.
Perhaps the reason they didn’t leap to answer the question is because it was beneath them to dignify such a stupid question with an answer. If the suspect is on US soil, you send the cops. Duh. Why would anyone think otherwise?
And as far as killing enemy combatants who happen to be citizens on American soil, I recall there is considerable precedent. Some of you erroneously refer to it as “the Civil War”. Granted, an attack by a lethal model airplane seems a bit impersonal, but the effect is very much the same.
This. The subject of using drones to target people on US soil is hypothetical at best, because there’s no part of the country in anywhere near the kind of civil disarray that parts of Yemen/Pakistan/etc. are such that civil enforcement of the law is impossible. The only time using drones on US soil would ever be an option would be some sort of civil insurrection/Mad Max scenario where things are completely falling to shit - in which case, the infrastructure to arrest someone and give them a fair trial probably won’t even exist.
It really was a simple point that Paul was making, which I can’t believe anyone on here would actually disagree with. This exchange between Ted Cruz and Holder illustrates it perfectly.
Ted Cruz and Eric Holder discuss Drones
Is it constitutional to use a drone to strike a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who is not posing an imminent threat?
Answering that it is not the Obama Administration’s policy to use drone strikes in that manner is not an appropriate response. It leaves open the possibility of a future administration changing that policy.
Using drones is clearly an increasing part of our national defense. Rand never questioned the idea of using a drone to strike someone posing an imminent threat. In fact he said several times during the filibuster that he is not talking about the 9-11 type scenario or even the armed individual with a loaded gun pointing it at someone type of scenario.
We use drones to strike suspected terrorists in foreign countries that are not engaging in any imminent threat type action and are killed just because they are a target. Paul wanted it on record from the executive branch that using drones in this manner would not be constitutional on U.S. soil on U.S. citizens that are not posing an imminent threat.
Separately he said the overall use of drones in other situations from the very specific one that was the subject of the filibuster should be something that further debate and discussion be undertaken. Dick Durbin seemed to agree with this.
Oh well - I guess we will wait for the next Republican President before the Left will rediscover its concerns, and the Right will go back to wanting the Presidency to be all powerful.
Today’s LA Times (those Right Wing Nutbars) has their take on the filibuster, and their concerns about the mythical risk: