Rand Paul filibustering Brennan's nomination as CIA Director (federal government, federal, administration)
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.
What Paul is whining about is the hypothetical case of the President using a drone to kill terrorists in the U.S., a right the President already has in defense of Americans.
In every state, police sharpshooters train to kill suspects without benefit of trial. Using a drone is legally not different. If a drone destroyed the rented van before the first WTC attack, who would say that wouldn't have been justifiable?
The Federal government can not direct the military to attack American citizens without a declaration of war because of the Posse Comitatus Act . You will note it is a part of Paul's argument right now.
Yes, the federal government could inform law enforcement of the information they have and have them act. In the end they are going to have to be able to defend that information.
They are arguing that they do not. That they can just kill and that's that.
No. We are not talking about kills under those scenario where suspect is armed, firing back, threatening to kill hostages.
How hard is this?
We are talking about the President coming up with a secret kill list. Deciding it's too much trouble to apprehend the suspect, and sending out his forces to kill him while he sleeps.
That's exactly what we're talking about. The Administration said that t doesn't envision using drones like this but is reserving the right to do so. It seems to me tat my scenario is exactly the circumstance when a drone would be used.
There is no evidence of your kill list scenario except as a paranoid fantasy.
The first paragraph states, clearly, that the administration rejects the use of drones, or any other military force, on US soil where law enforcement fits better.
And that is not good enough.
Quote:
In the second paragraph, he discusses hypothetical situations where the president could authorize the use on military force (drones or otherwise), and comes up with the 9/11 attack, and the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japanese forces - two major attacks, on US territory, by foreign countries or para-military groups.
ETA: Actualy, the Obama administration is more committed to the trial process than much of the US is - examples include the closing of Guantanamo Bay (Which Paul's one branch of the government routinely blocks), and the gaggle of politicians who claimed that holding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's trial in NYC would terrify people (on this one, Obama caved).
Your other examples here have nothing to do with the argument. Nobody is arguing that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed shouldn't get a trial but let's make clear one thing, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is not an American citizen. We can willy nilly remove non citizens rights.
What Paul is whining about is the hypothetical case of the President using a drone to kill terrorists in the U.S., a right the President already has in defense of Americans.
In every state, police sharpshooters train to kill suspects without benefit of trial. Using a drone is legally not different. If a drone destroyed the rented van before the first WTC attack, who would say that wouldn't have been justifiable?
The rules for use of deadly force by law enforcement are clearly defined and regulated under the law in every state. Please cite the regulations and definitions for the rules under the law in which Obama can assassinate a U.S. citizen on American soil with a drone strike.
That's exactly what we're talking about. The Administration said that t doesn't envision using drones like this but is reserving the right to do so. It seems to me tat my scenario is exactly the circumstance when a drone would be used.
There is no evidence of your kill list scenario except as a paranoid fantasy.
That administration "said".....they can't "envision"... We should just go by what they say?...LOL
Sorry, I'll take my separation of powers like the Constitution requires and 5th Amendment rights.
So tired of partisans who don't have the character to point out this criminality.
They are evasive in the answers because they are claiming radical powers which take away US citizens right to due process.
They killed a 16 year old US citizen, and they don't even present evidence he was a suspected terrorist.
That's the whole point of this. They are claiming the right to kill US citizens with no judicial oversight, beyond battlefield scenarios.
I can't see anyone faulting the government for using a drone to kill terrorists perched on an inaccessible mountain bent on shooting a missile at a commercial airliner.
That would be an event that "was about to happen" - imminent.
Rand Paul is not arguing against that.
Now, if the guy is an American citizen whose watching TV and eating a sandwich, thinking/fantasizing
about being inaccessible on a mountain top, ready to shoot a missile at a commercial airliner as he
watches a TV show about terrorists being perched on a mountain top, ready to shoot a missle at
a commercial airline,
be droned/killed without accusation or due process - that's the crux of the issue.
Direct Yes or No answer should suffice.
"Every word decides a question between power and liberty." - James Madison
Correct. So you were wrong. Holder was not answering the question. The issue IS NOT federal drone use as a replacement for local police, legal, policy. Nor is it a question of if Holder can kill a us citizen carrying out an attack on the US.
Nice try. Paul's letter to Brennen, which earned Holder's response, is clearly about using lethal force to target US citizens, on US soil, without trial, regardless of circumstance. Holder's response is, in essence, they have no plans to use deadly force on US soil against anyone, but there are some unlikely circumstances where the president does have such authority.
Nice try. Paul's letter to Brennen, which earned Holder's response, is clearly about using lethal force to target US citizens, on US soil, without trial, regardless of circumstance. Holder's response is, in essence, they have no plans to use deadly force on US soil against anyone, but there are some unlikely circumstances where the president does have such authority.
The Admin HAS NOT answered specific questions regarding their legal reasoning.
They have given answers to questions that are besides the point.
They did this to be evasive, because their real views are radical and illegal.
They will not even release the legal memos regarding their radical policy.
Nice try. Paul's letter to Brennen, which earned Holder's response, is clearly about using lethal force to target US citizens, on US soil, without trial, regardless of circumstance. Holder's response is, in essence, they have no plans to use deadly force on US soil against anyone, but there are some unlikely circumstances where the president does have such authority.
But he doesn't.
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.
