Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no desire to take this off topic and discuss law enforcement officers that have absolutely nothing to do with this.
Here is the start of Sen. Paul's filibuster.
I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan's nomination for the CIA I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. That Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in bowling green, Kentucky, is an abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. I don't rise to oppose John Brennan's nomination simply for the person. I rise today for the principle. The principle is one that as Americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the Fifth Amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. This is a precious American tradition and something we should not give up on easily.
The following is the key question from Sen. Paul's letter to Brennen.
"The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored."
Sen. Paul did not exclude from discussion Federal agents using deadly force within the borders of the United States. Seems to me there are only two categories. Either Federal Law enforcement agents or Military. The only difference between the two is that the military is under additional restrictions, based on applicable laws that AG Holder said should be applied, when operating within the borders of the United States.
In either case they are authorized to use deadly force if there exists an imminent danger.
Sen. Paul did not exclude from discussion Federal agents using deadly force within the borders of the United States.
Which would be because they are permitted to.
Quote:
Seems to me there are only two categories. Either Federal Law enforcement agents or Military. The only difference between the two is that the military is under additional restrictions, based on applicable laws that AG Holder said should be applied, when operating within the borders of the United States.
Yes, like the important one that states that they can not be used against citizens.
Quote:
In either case they are authorized to use deadly force if there exists an imminent danger.
Such as? (I imagine we will simply start the circular arguments again)
When you argue a strawman, like Paul did, it is irrelevant what was actually said by the opponents.
At the time Paul conducted his filibuster all he had was the AG's letter saying that a drone strike on American soil was conceivable under extraordinary circumstances. The letter said "such as" an attack but it did not limit it to an attack.
Paul said the President could drone strike someone eating dinner. Without any definition of what "extraordinary circumstances" means, that's a reasonable assumption. The circumstances could refer to who you are or what you've done in the past or what you might do. Not necessarily to what you are doing at the time the strike hits.
The AG did send a letter with an unequivocal no to drone striking someone not actively attacking the US, but that wasn't until the filibuster was already underway.
Yes, like the important one that states that they can not be used against citizens.
Such as? (I imagine we will simply start the circular arguments again)
Under current U.S. Laws the AG can request assistance from the Department of Defense in matters involving nuclear materials. Therefore the Military (Department of Defense) could be used to secure nuclear materials. If a U.S. Citizen was threatening to explode a nuclear bomb or release radioactive materials and the threat was imminent then the Military would be authorized to use deadly force. Therefore the only accurate response to Sen. Paul's question is yes under certain circumstances the President as Commander and Chief of the Military, would be authorized to order the use of deadly force against U.S. Citizens within the borders of the United States.
At the time Paul conducted his filibuster all he had was the AG's letter saying that a drone strike on American soil was conceivable under extraordinary circumstances. The letter said "such as" an attack but it did not limit it to an attack.
Paul said the President could drone strike someone eating dinner. Without any definition of what "extraordinary circumstances" means, that's a reasonable assumption. The circumstances could refer to who you are or what you've done in the past or what you might do. Not necessarily to what you are doing at the time the strike hits.
The AG did send a letter with an unequivocal no to drone striking someone not actively attacking the US, but that wasn't until the filibuster was already underway.
Therefore, Paul did not argue a strawman.
The AG's letter said "under the Constitution and applicable lawsof the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States." Those applicable laws require an imminent threat.
At the time Paul conducted his filibuster all he had was the AG's letter saying that a drone strike on American soil was conceivable under extraordinary circumstances. The letter said "such as" an attack but it did not limit it to an attack.
Paul said the President could drone strike someone eating dinner. Without any definition of what "extraordinary circumstances" means, that's a reasonable assumption. The circumstances could refer to who you are or what you've done in the past or what you might do. Not necessarily to what you are doing at the time the strike hits.
Actually, that's a ridiculous assumption, particularly to level towards an administration that has pushed for terrorists to be tried in civilian courts, often over the objections of members of Congress.
"We, sure, the President could, in theory, use military force in the US, if an event like 9/11 or the Attack on Pearl Harbor happened."
"Oh my God, you think you can drone strike/cruise missile/nuke me while I'm walking down the street!"
This, again, is a strawman fallacy.Yes, the President can order a military strike on you if you're walking down the street...if you're with fifty other people, and assisting in Bane's takeover of Gotham. Other than that, you'll be arrested by the FBI.
Under current U.S. Laws the AG can request assistance from the Department of Defense in matters involving nuclear materials. Therefore the Military (Department of Defense) could be used to secure nuclear materials. If a U.S. Citizen was threatening to explode a nuclear bomb or release radioactive materials and the threat was imminent then the Military would be authorized to use deadly force. Therefore the only accurate response to Sen. Paul's question is yes under certain circumstances the President as Commander and Chief of the Military, would be authorized to order the use of deadly force against U.S. Citizens within the borders of the United States.
Most of your posts have been attempts to deflect what members of both parties are now trying to get at. Nobody would be ordering someone killed. We can authorize law enforcement to stop certain actions. If in the course of those actions, if one would get killed that is different than an order to "kill".
All the same, they are also saying that the actions must be justified. Not simply because "I said so". If Anwar al-Aulaqi had been killed in a battle nobody would have questioned his death.
Most of your posts have been attempts to deflect what members of both parties are now trying to get at. Nobody would be ordering someone killed. We can authorize law enforcement to stop certain actions. If in the course of those actions, if one would get killed that is different than an order to "kill".
All the same, they are also saying that the actions must be justified. Not simply because "I said so". If Anwar al-Aulaqi had been killed in a battle nobody would have questioned his death.
I'm not trying to deflect anything.
AG Holder's letter that resulted in Sen. Paul's filibuster was a response to the following question from Sen. Paul:
"The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored."
As AG Holder responded, under certain conditions they would. Which is an accurate response based on the Constitution and applicable U.S. Laws.
The killing of Anwar al_Aulagi does not match the parameters Sen. Paul setup.
I read the letter sent by Barbara Lee (proud to say now my Congresswomen) and others. They appear to be focusing on the current drone strikes outside the United States.
We also ask that you prepare a report to Congress outlining the architecture of your Administration's drone program going forward, including your efforts to limit instances and remunerate victims of civilian casualties by signature drone strikes, broaden access to due process for identified targets and continue to structure the drone program within the framework of international law.
The administration has no domestic drone program and a domestic drone program wouldn't be based on international law. No were in the letter do they reference the killing of Americans within the borders of the United States. They are raising a different issue then what Sen. Paul said his filibuster was about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
