Holder finally admits it, drone strikes on US soil can be legal

[ivwshane]

He's standing on principle though, and I can respect that even if I disagree with him. (I happen to agree with him in this case, but not really the point).

Again, what I'm most impressed about is he's doing it the right way. He's not "threatening" a filibuster, or "making ovations that he might" filibuster, he's actually *doing it*.

As silly and convoluted as it may seem, *this* is how our government is supposed to work. *This* is how the filibuster was meant to be. It's kind of cool seeing it.

...and Ron Wyden kicks ass. I almost wish that I were still an Oregonian just so I could vote for him again.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and agree he is doing it on principle, so yeah good on him.

 

[boomerang]

How much support will Rand Paul get from those that consider him to be their enemy in this quest? There is one man with the support of a few in the Senate that is standing up for the rights of the citizens of this country against a regime that would seek to murder them if they are deemed to be an enemy of the state. Murder them with no trial. Murder them for reasons that need not be shared.

Who can cross over party line boundaries to support this man? Who would surrender still more freedoms because of party ideology? Too many of you.

Rand Paul is about as close to a hero as we get these days.

 

[cybrsage]

Wow. Doing a filibuster the *right* way...

Mad props to Rand.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. I think the rules need to be changed to force filibusters to be done the old fashioned way, just as Rand was doing it.

Mad props to him, I like him more now.

 

[cybrsage]

...against a regime that would seek to murder them if they are deemed to be an enemy of the state. Murder them with no trial. Murder them for reasons that need not be shared.

I am pretty much a "if our enemies want us to fight them, we should kill them all any way we can" type of person. Yet I am completely against the killing of American citizens without trial, due to Constitution. If the American citizen is on an active battlefield, sure, blow him to pieces...but when he is not, we must attempt to apprehend him. He may fight, and may die in the process, but the honest attempt to capture him alive must be made.

No president should have the power to bypass the Due Process protection of the Constitution.

 

[Bowfinger]

Problem is the context of the question. It's not repelling foreign invaders, it's striking an American citizen on US soil. What are the "extraordinary circumstances"? They are whatever the administration says they are. If you disagree, what limits actually exist?

First, I note that like any politician, Holder didn't answer the question Paul asked, at least not directly. Holder replied with a more general statement about the hypothetical use of military force. So regardless of what Paul asked, what Holder actually said was pretty benign and frankly obvious. My issue is the usual partisans trying to pervert Holder's statement into something it is not.

As far as defining "extraordinary circumstances", I absolutely agree this is a potential concern, but it's not specific to this administration. It's always an issue we live with, that a corrupt or inept government will justify something otherwise illegal by declaring extraordinary circumstances. In spite of the fevered imaginations of the Obama haters, I see nothing from this administration that suddenly increases the risk of actual abuse. The problem is we have (at least) decades of our government steadily eroding our rights, and that trend continues. The ready availability of drones adds a new tool for abuse, to be sure. I'm frankly more worried about drones being abused by local agencies than I am the federal government (though both are likely). In short, the recent hysteria about "Obama killer drones" is partisan noise, blown far, far out of proportion as usual. SSDD

 

[Chuck_v]

Perhaps my imagination is lacking, but why would a drone be preferable to a manned aircraft in taking out a target on US soil? We already own the airspace, and have dozens of bases around the country. I guess if the military needed the loiter capability in waiting for a target to appear a drone would be preferable.

Anyone have ideas why a drone would be needed in US airspace in the first place to take out a known target?

Drones can fly much longer periods of flight than helicopters and conventional military aircraft. The US is currently using drones on both the Northern and Southern US Borders as surveillance vehicles. All that need be done is to hang some ordnance on them and they go to an offensive role. I suspect drones are simply more cost effective in their use than manned military aircraft as well.

 

[etrigan420]

The problem is we have (at least) decades of our government steadily eroding our rights, and that trend continues.

This is my main concern as well.

The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, drones...I just don't see this ending well.

Holder didn't say anything that was particularly alarming in that exchange, but he didn't say anything that was particularly...specific...either. I understand the need for flexibility, but there *has* to be a way to better define the circumstances and scenarios which might be in play.

I don't care how much I admire or trust any given administration, being content with a "We got this, don't worry about it" attitude towards targeting American citizens on American soil just doesn't sit with me.

 

[bradley]

Good. I never saw much use for habeas corpus anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl3RPSw_450

 

[Pens1566]

First, I note that like any politician, Holder didn't answer the question Paul asked, at least not directly. Holder replied with a more general statement about the hypothetical use of military force. So regardless of what Paul asked, what Holder actually said was pretty benign and frankly obvious. My issue is the usual partisans trying to pervert Holder's statement into something it is not.

As far as defining "extraordinary circumstances", I absolutely agree this is a potential concern, but it's not specific to this administration. It's always an issue we live with, that a corrupt or inept government will justify something otherwise illegal by declaring extraordinary circumstances. In spite of the fevered imaginations of the Obama haters, I see nothing from this administration that suddenly increases the risk of actual abuse. The problem is we have (at least) decades of our government steadily eroding our rights, and that trend continues. The ready availability of drones adds a new tool for abuse, to be sure. I'm frankly more worried about drones being abused by local agencies than I am the federal government (though both are likely). In short, the recent hysteria about "Obama killer drones" is partisan noise, blown far, far out of proportion as usual. SSDD

This ^

Also, I don't see the same people being all up in arms over Cheney considering downing a commercial airliner during 9/11. Same type of "extreme" situation Holder was referencing.

 

[cybrsage]

Holder finally directly answers the question asked.

Shortly before the vote, Holder sent a terse letter to Paul that said: "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
In response, Paul said Thursday that "we're proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil." He later took to the floor to promote the attorney general's response, as the Senate moved to confirm Brennan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...san-focus-on-drones-regulation/#ixzz2MtImw0by

 

[Fern]

This isn't the civil war and "citizens" in this need no quotations. Just who defines "extreme"? What checks are there? We have something called law enforcement who is responsible for domestic issues. First we arrest Americans without due process and then violate posse comitatus and it's fine because of Lincoln. The Act wasn't even written until 1878.
We're screwed.

I applied apostrophes, not any quotation marks, to the word "citizen" because I suspect they felt they were citizens of the Confederacy and not the USA.

As to 'extreme", apparently I wasn't clear enough. Holder was responding to a hypothetical question. What I meant was if you create an extreme enough hypothetical scenario you will end up with an extreme result. E.g., I am now watching the old TV show "24". I just got done watching season 3 where terrorists, including both foreigners and US citizens, were trying to detonate a nuclear bomb in LA. In this extreme hypothetical scenario does the President have the Constitutional authority, the responsibility even, to kill those terrorists if necessary to prevent that? IMO, abso-freakin-lutely.

Posse Comitatus isn't applicable here:

Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act#Legislation

Moreover, the original text:

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[4]

IMO, the bolded section expressly permits use of the military on US soil for purposes of national defense.

We're not screwed, the President has always had these powers. We'll have a problem when a President acts in a way that abuses them. Until then I see no need to panic.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I applied apostrophes, not any quotation marks, to the word "citizen" because I suspect they felt they were citizens of the Confederacy and not the USA.

As to 'extreme", apparently I wasn't clear enough. Holder was responding to a hypothetical question. What I meant was if you create an extreme enough hypothetical scenario you will end up with an extreme result. E.g., I am now watching the old TV show "24". I just got done watching season 3 where terrorists, including both foreigners and US citizens, were trying to detonate a nuclear bomb in LA. In this extreme hypothetical scenario does the President have the Constitutional authority, the responsibility even, to kill those terrorists if necessary to prevent that? IMO, abso-freakin-lutely.

Posse Comitatus isn't applicable here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act#Legislation

Moreover, the original text:



IMO, the bolded section expressly permits use of the military on US soil for purposes of national defense.

We're not screwed, the President has always had these powers. We'll have a problem when a President acts in a way that abuses them. Until then I see no need to panic.

Fern

Further along that article there seems to be some doubts as to what precisely is allowed, but I see there are situations where some fantastic situation would warrant allowed action. I also see that Holder decisively addressed drones and I like the direct answer. I won't apologize for my concerns about Obama however since he came into offic promising to remove the excesses of the prior administration and instead compounded them. I'm not sure Obama really cares about Holders opinion given the tendency to obfuscate questions of domestic wiretaps and signing off on the NDAA. The president seems most interested n his own opinions, and little regard for others making him too much like Bush.