I think only the fringe Right/Left would consider it important to keep an eye out for us in this case, because only fringe people would think it is realistic for the government to use attack drones firing hellfire missiles to assassinate American citizens on US soil. It’d probably be easier just to drive up to their house and shoot them in the head.
Suspects? We’re at war with the people we are shooting! We’re using drones to kill them because it’s the best option given the circumstances. You can be sure we’d rather take them prisoner.
Did you ever ask yourself why? Why would this happen?
When my wife and I are watching a movie, anytime a character says “…but sometimes”, I always turn to her and say “Some irrational bullshit is about to follow”. Same here I noticed. The question does not need to be asked because it is stupid.
Aha so Holder has finally backed down and said explicitly that he won’t use drones on Americans in America. But has he specifically said he won’t use conventional aircraft to launch missles at terror suspects in the US? Has he said explicitly that he won’t use artillery, on the RNC head quarters? Has he said explicitly that he won’t nuke Salt Lake city? I don’t think so. Time for another filibuster.
As said above, drone attacks only make sense if you are attacking a very dangerous place where you don’t control the territory or have air superiority and so using more conventional method of attack would be dangerous. If we reach the situation where this is true of portions of the United states, them we have much more to worry about then if the government is using drones.
Perhaps Senator Paul can propose a bill to prohibit the government from secretly murdering innocent, law-abiding people in the United States. It seems to me that the job of Congress is to propose, debate and pass laws, rather than to blame the White House for there being ambiguity in the laws Congress wrote.
Anyway, I hear that raining down bombs from robotic flying death machines is a big problem in American cities these days, so that bill should get unanimous support.
Lefties of the SDMB!–when Eugene Robinson of WaPo is supportive of Rand and this filibuster, it might be time for you to at least in this instance abandon your reflexive defense of this administration:
Robinson is slightly left of Karl Marx and a long-time carrier of Obama’s water. Really, saying “Good on Rand” won’t make your head explode.
Nonsense. Robinson is a perfectly nice centrist liberal with whom I agree on a wide range of issues. Your notion of a unified, lockstep hive-mind on the left is sorely in need of revision.
And Senator Paul could easily have asked the question in the ordinary way of asking a question. His filibuster is nothing more than a vapid political stunt, as underlined by his repulsive public gloating, cited above. Mr Robinson is an intelligent political observer who makes the occasional mistake, Sen Paul is a public troll who specializes in mistakes.
Your fantasy about Mr Robinson’s political leanings probably means this is the first and last time you read him. Pity. He’s rather good. He could feed himself for life just eating David Brooks’ lunch.
I actually read him regularly, and the Marx comment was a joke, trying to make clear to anyone unfamiliar with him that this is not some Fox News regular. From my perspective, he’s consistent with WaPo’s editorial voice, which is left of center. In fact, I’d say he’s on the left side of even the WaPo spectrum. Nothing wrong with having a particular perspective.
Relax, I’m not saying there’s a hive mind, though there is a lot of reflexive defensiveness on both sides of the spectrum, including in this thread, IMO. It was a joke, to make that point. Didn’t you see my smilie guy? →
[QUOTE=Cruz, Paul Bill]
The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law.
[/QUOTE]
Also, I think they’re position is not that there is ambiguity in the laws that Congress wrote, but instead that they believe the Constitution is fairly clear that this sort of action would not be permitted and they want the chief legal officer of the U.S., Attorney General Eric Holder, to confirm his agreement.
The focus on drones is really bizarre. In the unlikely case that the US gov’t starts a campaign of targeted killing of people inside the US, they aren’t going to use drones. And if they did, the problem would be the government participating in targeted killings, not the specific weapon system they used. I certainly don’t really care if the gov’t kills me with a drone, an F-35 or a snipers bullet.
I feel pretty strongly that the current policy of targeted killings in general is unconstitutional. But the idea that people are entitled to due process only if they happen to be standing in the United States, and only if they’re citizens, and only from death by a particular type of weapon system is silly.
“And nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting the use of lethal drones in a program of mandatory gay marriage imposed upon Eagle Scouts…”
[QUOTE=ACLU]
“As a result of Sen. Paul’s historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins: the Obama administration disclaimed authority to use an armed drone within the United States in the absence of a Pearl Harbor-style attack, but more importantly, Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration’s vast killing program,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office. “There is now a truly bipartisan coalition in Congress and among the public demanding that President Obama turn over the legal opinions claiming the authority to kill people far from a battlefield, including American citizens. We are not a country of secret rules, particularly when the rules unilaterally justify the killing of as many as 4,700 people, including four American citizens.”
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t seen legislation addressing such a turgid issue since a congressman wrote an amendment to a defense funding bill prohibiting US government assistance to Hamas and Hizbollah.
Dave, I ain’t coy, if I’m set on calling you names, you won’t have any doubt about it. I’m not sure Sen Paul can spell “ACLU”, and I’m pretty sure I couldn’t care less about his opinion on it.
I value them because they are extremists on the issues of free speech and other sundries. They occupy a position that needs to be occupied, and they say things that need to be said, even if they are flat out wrong a lot of the time. In this instance, I think they are.
The answer to Sen Pauls question is “no”. The answer was the same before he asked the question, and I’d be willing to bet he knew that. Of course its illegal and unConstitutional, did anyone ever seriously doubt that?
Now, I haven’t the imagination to dream up a scenario where an American citizen is on American soil, and his presence is a clear and immediate danger to American lives, he is in imminent threat and the only way to stop him is to break the law…and Obama shrinks from that because of it being illegal?..then he doesn’t have the balls to be President.
The value of law is to protect people from fear, to protect human life and human dignity, if protecting people means breaking the law, then I say to hell with it, do what needs be done and take the consequences.
I agree with attempts to block Brennan’s nomination because he is an out and out evil man. He supports warrantless wiretapping, CIA torture AND drones. If it’s an evil quesitonable activity, Brennan has a record of supporting it. I remember he said during his confirmation that he was personally opposed to torture and waterboarding, and I remember all his former associates saying, “Well if he was opposed to torture, he certainly never mentioned it to ME.”
Another Bush era asshole is gonna continue Bush’s ways under Obama. God, Obama stinks to high heaven sometimes.
I would point out that Holder’s letter does not change anything he said previously, that it clearly is constitutional to use military force against US citizen combatants on US soil, and that doing so is not breaking the law.
[QUOTE=US Constitution, Article I, Section 9]
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
[/QUOTE]
Holder was correct to say that hypothetically, under a very limited set of circumstances, the US could use drones to kill a US citizen on a US soil, and Rand Paul spent a day grandstanding and pretending that he didn’t understand either the Constitution or that original statement because he wants to build street cred for his 2016 presidential campaign.
The text of the Constitution makes it quite clear that when a person on US soil is engaged in making war against the US, that the executive need not apply the standard of due process of law to them - it has the right and the authority to see to their disposition in any matter that is appropriate. US history is full of examples of the use of military force against insurgent citizens - the Whiskey Rebellion, the Harper’s Ferry raid, the Civil War, the Bonus Army, etc. - and time and time again, the courts and the legislature have agreed that when someone has a gun and is shooting at you, it is not necessary to inquire about their citizenship, attempt to arrest them, and give them a trial and a public defender.
The entire “drones” thing is a red herring, because there’s no “except for with drones” clause in the Constitution. If someone is making war against the US and is a clear and present threat to the public safety, it’s constitutionally irrelevant whether they’re taken out with a gun or by drone or by a herd of rampaging yaks. It’s also irrelevant, because there’s pretty much no scenario that you or I can even imagine where sending a drone to attack someone on US soil would be the preferable manner of dispensing with the threat they pose - one could, say, send in the police, since there’s not currently a civil war going on and there aren’t vast stretches of the country where no law enforcement exists or the local government is actively harboring and supporting insurgents.
