Rand Paul filibustering Brennan's nomination as CIA Director (great, advocate, important)
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 agree an imminent threat is not something that would tend to lend itself to oversight prior to the event. Which is why there could be a scenario were deadly force is used by people under Presidents command.
The Obama Administration agrees with you that "there is no reason for there use here at all", if by "here" you mean within the borders of the United States and by "there" you are referring to drones.
However Sen. Paul's issue was not whether or not drones have any "use", but whether or not the Administration had authority to use them.
"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."
The only difference from prior situations, within the borders of the United States, is the technology potentially or hypothetically being used.
That's not the only difference. He was not concerned about them using drones to accomplish something they already do here by other means. What prompted his concern was the use the drones were put to in other countries. He didn't want them put to the same use here as they were put to in other countries.
The only difference from prior situations, within the borders of the United States, is the technology potentially or hypothetically being used.
In the end he will not get the legal right to target citizens because of some hypothetical situation. There is never a case for Holder's hypothetical's.
That's not the only difference. He was not concerned about them using drones to accomplish something they already do here by other means. What prompted his concern was the use the drones were put to in other countries. He didn't want them put to the same use here as they were put to in other countries.
By he I assume you mean Sen. Paul. AG holder already had replied to Sen. Paul, prior to the filibuster, that applicable U.S. Laws would apply for any use of drones in the United States. Those applicable laws only permit the use of deadly force in cases of an imminent threat.
In the end he will not get the legal right to target citizens because of some hypothetical situation. There is never a case for Holder's hypothetical's.
So you disagree with Sen. Paul when he said during his filibuster that:
"Now, some might come to this floor and they might say, "Well, what if we're being attacked on 9/11? What if there are planes flying at the Twin Towers?" Obviously, we repel them. We repel any attack on our country.
If there's a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force. You don't get due process if you're involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government."
By he I assume you mean Sen. Paul. AG holder already had replied to Sen. Paul, prior to the filibuster, that applicable U.S. Laws would apply for any use of drones in the United States. Those applicable laws only permit the use of deadly force in cases of an imminent threat.
Yes, I meant Paul. I was responding to the portion of your post that said the only issue was the technology used. It was policy as well, not just the drones themselves, according to quotes of his I've read.
John Podesta is chairman of the Center for American Progress and a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University. He served as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff from 1998 to 2001.
By he I assume you mean Sen. Paul. AG holder already had replied to Sen. Paul, prior to the filibuster, that applicable U.S. Laws would apply for any use of drones in the United States. Those applicable laws only permit the use of deadly force in cases of an imminent threat.
A vague answer is not specific.
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.
