Rand Paul Launches a Filibuster Against Drone Strikes On US Soil 693
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that at about 11:45 am today, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul took the floor of the Senate to launch one of the chamber's rarest spectacles: a genuine filibuster. Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. He called Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to rule out drone strikes to kill an American on U.S. soil 'more than frightening,' adding, 'When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It's an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, "No." The president's response? He hasn't killed anyone yet. We're supposed to be comforted by that.' Any senator can opt to hold the floor to speak on any matter, but the practice of speaking for hours on end is rare, especially in the modern-day Senate, where the chamber's rules are used more often to block legislation or to hold show votes on trivial matters. Paul has since been joined in his symbolic effort by Republicans Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). He has also gotten some bipartisan support from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.). Paul suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of people who might have been considered enemies of the state. 'Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'"
The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
is not my friend. But damn if I'm not happy someone is asking these questions and putting up some serious opposition.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other extreme I really like Rand Paul, and though I am not thrilled by people like Pelosi or Reid, I would support them 100% if they would speak out against drone strikes on US citizens.
There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other extreme I really like Rand Paul, and though I am not thrilled by people like Pelosi or Reid, I would support them 100% if they would speak out against drone strikes on US citizens.
There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.
Re: Mods
THAT'S NOT FUNNY! It's the crux of the fucking problem!
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
THAT'S NOT FUNNY! It's the crux of the fucking problem!
Yeah, odd isn't it. Where are all these groups and people now who were protesting against the war. Especially now that Obama has launched three new ones, and wants to have defacto powers to execute americans on american soil without due process. But he wants to give arrest rights to terrorists taken on battlefields. Anyone else see some type of logical disconnect here? Or is the partisan ship really that blindly strong, that they won't "speak up" because it's "not a republican." I'm guessing it's because "not a republican."
Cue the angry whiners that say my post is partisan politics at it's finest. Personally my stake in US politics rides as far as: Canadian interests, how will it effect my property values in Florida, and is cake vs pie still a worthy debate.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
Where are all these groups and people now who were protesting against the war.
In jail [wikipedia.org]
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that's a lie. All those people out there protesting the wars, protesting the drone strikes and protesting an out of control military industrial complex, are still out there. They are simply being completely ignored by mass media. There is also of course no support by any political party to organise mass action which can force public recognition.
So it is not on of partisan politics. It is lack of political support and corporate media at it finest 'er' worst. All the protesters are still the but there are no mass actions, as there is no supportive political organisation to drive them.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that's a lie. All those people out there protesting the wars, protesting the drone strikes and protesting an out of control military industrial complex, are still out there.
Perhaps your partisanship has led you to forget that Senator Obama spoke against and campaigned against the wars, against deficit spending, against the health insurance mandate, against all sorts of things that President Obama has been only too happy to engage in.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the reasons they were more outspoken back then was because there was a draft. When your number might randomly come up, and you might be shipped over to fight that war you disagree with yourself, you are a lot more motivated to protest then when only volunteers are going over.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are all these groups and people now who were protesting against the war. Especially now that Obama has launched three new ones, and wants to have defacto powers to execute americans on american soil without due process.
Don't you remember? They were shouted down, pelted with trash by passers-by, corralled by police, and largely ignored by both the media and politicians. The protests were completely ineffective. My proof? The illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were started by Bush anyway.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. I think it is hilarious that Democrats cheer for a health care law that was originally designed by Republicans during the Clinton administration, while Republicans protest it now because it was passed into law by Democrats. And now we have Republicans protesting drone programs created during the Bush administration, and protesting killing Americans with drones when the Bush administration killed at least one American without due process because he was deemed an "enemy combatant."
But I doubt Republicans will want to put too many restrictions on a warmongering, domestic-spying Democratic president. They realize any laws they pass now to rein in Obama could also be used rein in future presidents, which may be one of them.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
I note that the key phrase of the filibuster is about "killing Americans on American soil". So neither Republicans nor Democrats have a problem with killing Americans abroad? I think I better cancel that trip to Germany. What a subtle way to enforce travel restrictions while seeming to allow freedom of movement [/hyperbole]
Seems like trade between the US and China DOES affect politics and policy: we're becoming more totalitarian and restrictive even faster than China is opening up.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
I find the key phrase to be killing people without due process. Whether American or not, it is wrong to randomly kill people for their political beliefs.
Could be worse, here in Canada the right wing is going to remove citizenship from terrorists to get around that problem. Of course the definition of terrorist seems to constantly grow.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Informative)
It's been 20+ years since I took the course in Constitutional law (elective - I was an engineering major), so I can't cite the exact SCotUS case which established it. But U.S. Constitutional protections are limited to U.S. territory. That's why Bush sent prisoners to Guantanamo - it's Cuban territory, not U.S. The U.S. just has a perpetual lease on it (we pay Cuba about $4000/yr for it, though Castro felt the treaty was invalid and refused to cash the checks). That freed the administration from pesky things like the Constitution when it came to dealing with the prisoners. The SCotUS eventually decided the lease effectively made it U.S. territory and thus the prisoners had Constitutional rights, but both administrations seem to be ignoring that decision.
So the key phrase is actually "on American soil." Foreigners visiting the U.S. also gain Constitutional protection while they're in the U.S. -- even illegal immigrants, which is what the whole flap about the law passed in Arizona was about. The concept of a drone strike taking out someone within the U.S. appears to violate the Due Process clause because it's difficult to think of a situation involving a drone where there's an immediate threat to life thus warranting the use of deadly force. To use a drone to kill someone, you pretty much have to have decided to execute the person without apprehending him, and thus without having put him on trial. Very different from a cop who kills a suspect who points a gun at him.
People are just adding the "killing Americans" part to it to generate a stronger reaction. If you just say "killing people on American soil", some people who think terrorists shouldn't have Constitutional rights will say "yeah, I can see that being justified some time." Even though they're wrong, it dilutes opposition and distracts from the central issue. So they're narrowing it down to the one case pretty much the entire public will have a problem with - killing Americans on American soil.
Outside the U.S., the Constitution doesn't apply, and the government is free (legally) to kill people left and right (morally is another question). Killing U.S. citizens abroad seems to be kinda iffy, but as I understand the legal precedent there's no Constitutional restriction against the government doing it especially during a state of war.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
Fast forward to protests held during Obama's tenure, the Occupy Wall Street movement. This time it wasn't a single day, but weeks, and months, of protest camps across hundreds of cities. The end result: ? How many bankers have been arrested? How many laws have changed? What impact has it had aside from a media sideshow?
And now the GP wonders, why aren't people protesting more? Why aren't people making a big protest against the president's claim to kill political dissidents? It's ridiculous to claim that partisan politics are what stand in the way. It didn't prevent OWS from happening did it?
Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change? Thats why people aren't protesting now.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
A few weeks before the Iraq war started, the world saw the largest coordinated protest in history across hundreds of cities, with millions upon millions of people calling for peace. The end result: Nothing.
That's because most people supported the Iraq war right before it started. I was really upset at Bush for a while, for taking the country in a direction the people didn't want go. Then I realized, America did want to go that direction. So I stopped being so mad at Bush and got mad at the American people. Including all the congresspeople who authorized the war.
I would add that your point is a good one, protests don't make a huge difference, at best they draw attention to a problem. But everyone already knew about the Iraq war, so what's the point?
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change?
Yes. The 1999 WTO protests in Seattle (and the follow-up S11 protests in Melbourne) caused lots of changes. After that, the authorities could no longer trust protestors to behave themselves, and so became far more adversarial. These protests effectively undid the multiple decades of goodwill that had been established between police and activists since Vietnam.
I'm guessing that's not the kind of change you meant, though.
Oh, and while I think of it, the early Tea Party protests gave the Koch Brothers a ready-made astroturf front to help in their campaigns to sway public opinion. I guess you could say that had long-lasting effects.
On a more serious note, the SOPA/PIPA protests seem to have worked, though of course the work isn't finished.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Informative)
Which bankers? They're not on Wall Street.
PBS disagrees.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/ [pbs.org]
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Informative)
Voter fraud is so insignificant in America that even if everyone who did it in all the US were in the same district, they couldn't change the outcome.
The GOP has manipulated a minor problem into an all-out assault on minorities and, while gerrymandering has been abused historically by both sides, their last round of redistricting was abominable.
If anyone is conducting or planning to conduct voter fraud on a grand scale, it's the RightWingNuts. Time and demographics are against them and the only things that can save their brand is either blatant cheating or a return to sanity. I'm not holding my breath for the latter.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Informative)
The Washington State gubernatorial election of 2004 was invalidated by fraud. During the post election legal maneuvers the Judge "noted that there was evidence that 1,678 votes had been illegally cast throughout the state." Additionally it is known that there were 3,500 more counted ballots in King county than there were registered voters. In the end the Judge concluded that he was unable to know how those illegal ballots were cast so he decided to do nothing. The election was settled by a difference of 133 votes. It's not known how the fraud effected the election, but the known fraud exceeded the margin of victory.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Afghanistan wasn't illegal and it wasn't started by Bush.
The US coalition forces invaded Afghanistan on the pretext of hunting a criminal (bin Laden). Sounds illegal to me. What would you say if the Chinese military traced a murderer from Beijing to Los Angeles and proceeded to bomb the crap out of LA?
and it wasn't started by Bush.
Who started it then? The fucking Tooth Fairy? Or do you mean the Taliban started it by declaring war on the US through their refusal to co-operate over bin Laden? Well, guess what, they don't like the US. That didn't give the US the right to invade them.
And since I've been deployed there, I think I can speak on the subject better than you can.
Piss off. I've been on holiday to Egypt, that doesn't make me a diplomatic expert on the Middle East.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
Especially now that Obama has launched three new ones
I don't disagree with most of what you said, but this part stands out to me. I've seen it mentioned by people who identify themselves with the Tea/Republican party but I don't know what three wars they speak of. At best, I can think of our involvement in Libya (where most of Europe got involved too) and possibly a reference to Syria (where in truth we are sitting and watching the government kill it's people). I don't believe we got involved in Mali (yet).
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
How exactly is one supposed to surrender to a drone?
These are murder/execution machines. There is no due process, no chance of being arressted and brought before a court for your crimes, you are simply executed with no chance to defend yourself. It is the most tyrannical of powers, and of you support it, you truly are unamerican.
It's the new normal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
Mali? Mali, of all the places, where the isn't a single American boot on the ground or in the air? Libya was for once a required war that prevented much greater suffering. If you want to know what would have happened without that intervention - which was supported by the UN, largely carried out by NATO forces, and was over in weeks - look at Syria. And Yemen is a war now? Holy crap, by that measure Oakland is a warzone and LA is the longest on-going war since the 100-year war.
They aren't big, flashy wars, they aren't wars, they aren't even police actions by any measure of the word. Not to mention that one of them was necessary, and the second one you mention is barely a drone action.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
The war in Libya was not approved by Congress, was not a clear and present danger, was not something that came up suddenly with no time to take the matter to Congress, nor was it even a matter where secrecy was required. It was a situation with absolutely no excuse for leaving Congress out of the decision making. It was illegal and therefore it was wrong. And it shows that our current president has no respect for the American Constitution.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.
Really? I remember Pelosi going along with just about everything Bush2 wanted.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right.
It's just like we had to wait for a Democrat in the White House for the Republicans to demand any action on wartime injustice committed by our country. They had no problem OK'ing all of it under Bush, including torture.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
So cynically true.
I've come to realize that American politics isn't about policies at all. It's tribalism. How else can you explain how Democrats who once shredded GWB on his horrid civil liberties record, clam up and circle the wagons around Obama when Obama is even worse than GWB. It obviously has nothing to do with the policy being evil if both sides do it, and that leaves nothing but base tribal defense.
Obama and his ilk in the DNC are precisely why I have utterly abandoned them. Last election I voted for my fucking cat on any ballot position for which there was no third party candidate. I'd vote for Satan if he ran as not-GOP or not-DNC, and you know what, I'd be voting for the lesser evil.
Re: (Score:3)
I've come to realize that American politics isn't about policies at all. It's tribalism.
I wish we were so lucky. In reality, you've fallen for what's nothing more than a fucking puppet show; all of these slimebags on both sides of the aisle work owe their allegiance to the same shady special interests.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
You are absolutely correct. Elected officials are pure scammers. When I wrote of tribalism though, I was thinking more of the party members -- the rank and file. You don't have to look hard to find people whose identity is partly comprised of their party affiliation. And when you talk to these people it's a wall.
Lackey: GWB was evil.
Me: Obama is doing the same thing.
Lackey: Oh, so you're one of those pickup driving low information voters then -- where's your KKK badge?
Lackey: Obama is a marxist. ...
Me: He wants to cut social security, even said his policy was similar to Romney's in a debate.
Lackey: Those fucking patchouli stinking pot smoking hippy marxists
Anyway, these types of people honestly and deeply hate each other on a purely tribal basis. That's what I was getting at. I also think it is a somewhat dangerous dynamic, at least potentially, because it is not based on reason, just hate.
Re: (Score:3)
American politics isn't about policies at all. It's tribalism
No shit, what do you think happens when you can't vote for "policies" and any vote not for a Republican or Democrat is "wasted"?
Re: (Score:3)
Huh?
Bush wasn't a dictator. Bush also kept some promises and broke other promises and once in office found things different than they looked before he got their.
So how is any of that evidence that something good has changed?
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
Some things have changed for the better. More has changed for the worse. Ending DADT, and half-assed health insurance reform were good things. But those good things are far outweighed by blatant disrespect for the rule of law.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:4, Interesting)
Click the link in my sig. I've not updated it in some time, but Obama is worse or equal to GWB on so much it is disgusting. But more to the point:
What powers are the MOST characteristic of a dictator? How about this:
arbitrary execution
arbitrary indefinite detention
arbitrary war
Obama has taken on each and every one of those powers (if you didn't notice, Libya hits the third). So yeah, Obama is a lesser evil like being crushed to death by million pounds of crap is a lesser evil than being crushed by a million and one pounds of crap.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Funny)
That's why America needs to playfully toggle the president's party more often: to make Congress look at schizoid as possible, for our amusement. "I'm a constitutionalist! It's a living document! Small government! Big government! Flip! Flop! The president must kill the terrorists without wasting courts' resources on an unnecessary trial! The president must not harm the innocent without due process! Rabbit season! Duck season! I demand you shoot me now!"
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
Usually this degenerates to: "I'm right, you're wrong".
Re: (Score:3)
There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
Usually this degenerates to: "I'm right, you're wrong".
If speaking of politicians, I'd say - give them both some drones and permission to obliterate one another: for the last politician standing, we may need to find some other means to keep at bay - the ballot box may be a start.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:4, Interesting)
Question: why, exactly, does the citizenship of the victim make a difference?
Murder is murder. It's just as illegal to kill a Yemeni as it is to kill an American, wherever you are.
You're right, there needs to be less "us vs them". But you're not dropping the distinction at all - all you're doing is drawing the boundaries in a different place. But the boundaries themselves are still just as arbitrary.
(Of course there are extenuating circumstances if you're at war. But in that case the citizenship of the victim still doesn't matter. Look at Lincoln: he ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of US citizens on US soil, and history doesn't generally condemn him on those grounds.)
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anybody anywhere suggests that a person engaging in a violent criminal act and who will not surrender or surrender is not an option (e.g., seconds away from pulling the trigger) --- nobody is saying "don't kill the shooter." There is absolutely no constitutional or ethical issue with using deadly force to end the rampage. Never has been. The drone policy is much more like the situation where "Joe (who has a grudge against Bob) told Sally who told a mall cop, that Bob was going to shoot up the mall," so the mall cop sneaks up behind Bob while he's eating in the food court and blows his brains out.
Drone strikes are about killing people the Government, in secret and with no oversight, has _accused_ of being dangerous people (based on who knows what) while those people are NOT actively engaged in any type of violent activity. There are several problems here:
1: accusation is not guilt. If you ever have been the subject of a vengeful person's wrath, you get this. People lie. If you've ever been accused of something by mistake, you get this. People err.
2: accusation in secret means you don't even know you've been accused and have absolutely no chance to demonstrate that there is some kind misunderstanding. You're just driving down the road thinking about dinner, then you're dead.
3. if you aren't actually in the middle of rampage through the mall or a kindergarten, how is it that arrest is too onerous? It's not, or if it is, then all arrests everywhere are too dangerous and all suspects everywhere should just be killed. I'm sure even in N. Korea you get a show trial first. And it is that black and white -- either all accused not actively doing their crime should be summarily executed based on accusation alone, or only those people who are actually acting in an immediately dangerous fashion should be subject to deadly force. There is no logical reason to create exceptions in which some people in non-dangerous situations should be killed and others should not.
4. secret laws. These drone strikes are based on secret legal memos that Obama says authorize them. First off, legal memos your lawyers write for you aren't the law -- they're opinion. Secondly, what the fuck -- we're talking secret laws here. How can you avoid breaking a law if it is secret? Anwar Alwaki published youtube videos. He was murdered for exercising free speech apparently. Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what you are allowed to say in American political discourse before you are killed by a drone? And then, if you are accused of saying something, wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend yourself in the event there was a misinterpretation?
There really is no middle ground -- either you accept arbitrary Federal murder of people accused of any crime or you don't. If you don't, you resist drones. If you do, you are a traitor to everything the constitution stands for.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
If an American soldier decides to us military firepower on civilians, should a drone be used to stop him? I think we would agree that of a person shot him, it would be thankful, but use the scary word drone and suddenly it's all terminator.
It's not that there aren't times when a drone would be useful, it's that giving police that power is more dangerous than sticking to old fashioned police work.
Look at what has happened with SWAT teams. There are definitely times when SWAT teams are extremely useful. But every podunk police force thinks it needs a SWAT team, and if they have a SWAT team, they're going to use it whether it's neccessary or not. So you end up with paramilitary police using egregiously excessive force [reason.com] with absolutely no oversight or consequences.
Similarly, once the NYPD and LAPD get their hands on drones, Bumfuck IA is going to want a drone too. And once they get a drone, they're going to use it, whether they have a valid justification for it or not.
Nothing the President has done, and no interpetatiojn the white house presented included killing Americans on American soil.
And nothing Daryl F. Gates ever said included shooting a mayor's dog out of spite, and yet it happened. Any power that can be abused will be abused. Guaranteed.
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Informative)
It's a fake debate using FUD to take the eyes off the fact that the republicans have lied and moved the goal post on the economy and budget issues.
Would that be the part about Obama's administration not tabling any budgets for the past oh what is it now? 5 or 6 years, or the fact that they're trying to claim that a 2% cut is the end of the world.
It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States, "Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul's question about whether Obama "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial."
That doesn't get much clearer does it. [washingtonexaminer.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There are two limits in your statement that no one in the administration is willing to place on these strikes:
If an American soldier decides to us military firepower on civilians, should a drone be used to stop him?
If an American is giving information, or aiding the enemy, and if it's ion hostile soil, and if the military can't get a team to the person to capture them, and we can't work out something for the local military/police to take action, then we can use a drone.
The statement that Mr. Paul wants from the administration is that the people we drone need to be a) shooting at people and b) not in the US.
The first restriction is the big one, because the whole basis is that there's no time to act and lives are in the balance. If you allow the executive to point and say "terrorist!" at anyone and without any process kill them, potentially for actions that won't le
Re:The enemy of my enemy (Score:5, Interesting)
This filibuster isn't actually doing anything about the drones. He's just playing it up for public opinion.
Which in a democracy is the most important type of "doing something". There are 100 senators and 500-odd representatives in congress most of which would never vote for anything that their opponent could distort as being weak on crime/terrorists/etc. Simply introducing legislation that will go nowhere wouldn't help anything. To effect change you need to hold a fire on the feet of all the rest of the Senators and force them to act. That is what this filibuster is about. It is about refusing to let the senate continue in it's stupid political game of trivialities, until they start address the real problems in this country.
Almost... (Score:5, Funny)
He had a lot of people thinking about it, until he offered up dropping a Hellfire on Jane Fonda. Now they're all thinking "Let's not be hasty here. This is the perfect test case."
Re:Almost... (Score:4, Insightful)
then I realised that it's the other way around.
Re:Almost... (Score:4, Funny)
Heard on the Senate floor: "Don't drone me, bro."
Re:Almost... (Score:4, Funny)
Any sufficiently advanced politics is indistinguishable from humour.
Or would it be:
Any politics is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced humour.
Because "sufficiently advanced politics" sounds like onea them oxymorons.
Re:Almost... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, looking at how the FBI abused its powers decades ago, we would more likely see such powers used against various college kids. Hoover was infamous for using government powers to crack down on civil rights activists, including going as far as to orchestrate at least one high profile smear campaign to cover up an agent's role in the murder of an activist. All under the idea that civil rights leaders were threats to America and thus enemies of the state.
So it wouldn't be the Jane Fondas of the world that would suffer, it would be no-name nobodies that do not have enough of a public personality to survive the 'they were enemies' rationalization.
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds like the standard description of a politician.
It is disturbing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes.
Why isn't EVERYONE IN CONGRESS alarmed by this?
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why isn't EVERYONE IN CONGRESS alarmed by this?
They like power. Even though we the people have the power constitutionally speaking...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why isn't EVERYONE IN CONGRESS alarmed by this?
They like power. Even though we the people have the power constitutionally speaking...
Not for long
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:4, Informative)
Can you cite where Obama says targeted killings count as due process?
You can read a discussion right here [motherjones.com]. Granted, not Obama personally, but presumably Attorney General Eric Holder voices Obama's position
It was my understanding that the stance of the White House considers drone strikes as military actions that don't require due process.
Not so. Well, I think it is their position that they got 20 good reasons and this is just one of them:
"'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." Holder said. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."
Re: (Score:3)
"Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,â
-Attorney General Eric Holder
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:5, Informative)
The Obama administration’s apparent belief that due process can be satisfied in secret inside the executive branch is...a travesty of the very notion of due process. And to borrow a phrase from Justice Robert Jackson, it will now lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any administration that needs it.
Another interesting quote reveals a fact of which I was unaware:
Although the white paper doesn’t say so, Awlaki even tried to get a hearing before he was killed. His father asked a federal court to find that he wasn’t a terrorist. But the court never heard his claim, because the Obama administration persuaded it not to consider the case.
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, but you missed the part where Obama actually took the position that secret tribunals without you present or even aware of them can constitute "due process."
Obama can take a position that Congress needs to be summarily dismissed, since executive branch is handling things just fine without them.
But if he has no authority to do so, then Congress is supposed to stop him. After all the huffing and puffing, Congress cannot even seem to get a reading copy of legal memos authorizing drone strikes. How much more subservient can they get?
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly enough, shortly after the Congress declared war in WW2, President Roosevelt "suggested" that Congress go into recess until the war was over...
Luckily for all of us, Congress told him to pound sand....
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:5, Informative)
The Insurrection Act (w/ 2006 amendments) however does in fact authorize use of military force in certain circumstances:
"(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Allow me to point out some other things that are in the Constitution:
And so on. The fact of the matter is that you only have the rights that you are willing to defend. If we as a society are unwilling to vote the bums out for defiling the Constitution, then that becomes the new normal. Worse, because justices change over time, newer justices who see these abuses as normal will have less reason to question the next set of abuses. Over the generations, this results in an almost unstoppable march towards tyranny. The slippery slope is very real. It just takes several generations to be fully realized.
Of course, historically speaking, things always eventually get to a point where the masses revolt and form a new government designed to protect them from the abuses of the past, usually by ensuring that the worst usurpers are the first against the wall. However, just as inevitably, that new government eventually gets perverted over the decades or centuries until it looks a lot like what they had before. Rinse, repeat. And this pattern pretty much describes all governments throughout history.
Sadly, there is one truth, and that is this: that which you are unwilling to defend will be taken away from you. If you value freedom, you must be willing to act against those who would take it away—casting your vote, running for office, and so on. If you do not do that, then you have no rights, and no piece of paper is ever going to change that.
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just being a government official doesn't reduce your rights, and EVERY CITIZEN CAN ALREADY DO WHAT Rand Paul is TECHNICALLY arguing against. If I happen to have a drone and its armed and I see something happening I can shoot people with it. In the state I live in I can do that if I am reasonably sure that force is necessary to prevent loss of life, commission of crimes, etc.
Interesting....
I think you may have, unknowingly, touched upon the one rationale that may cause our venerable Representatives to rethink their position regarding domestic drone usage...
"What, you mean The People can use them to shoot at US TOO??!! BAN THEM!! BAN THEM AAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!"
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that no matter how much "self-defense" you are engaging in, if you cause any "collateral damage" with your hypothetical drone defense, you will go to jail for the rest of your life.
Whereas if the government executes a drone strike to kill a citizen terrorist, and innocents die, their families will just get told "sorry".
Neither you nor the government should be allowed to fly armed drones in the public airspace.
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Example Headlines: "Drone Strikes, Could YOU Be Targeted?" or "The 5th Amendment: Still Standing?".
Articles could then explore who might be killed, or whether these strikes are a clear violation of constitutional rights.
We could also see these issues brought to the forefront more readily.
Re: (Score:3)
There's not that much difference between sending a drone in or a fighter jet, or a team of marines - all things congress has been ok with in the past.
Re:It is disturbing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, (D) good (R) Bad (or Visa Versa). That's why. In this case, if this was GWB, it would be bad, but since it is Obama, it is okay. Just look through the post on this thread to see plenty of (D)s saying it is okay because it is a (D) president. It is shocking.
But Cruz is a-Pauling? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But Cruz is a-Pauling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to hold hearings on the program rather than obstruct confirmations?
Probably not, at least from his point of view, because he doesn't have the power to make hearings happen. As a single, lone, junior senator, this is about the only thing he can do.
From a practical perspective, in the last decade hearings have been the most boring, useless things around. A filibuster will definitely attract more attention.
Re:But Cruz is a-Pauling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrary to popular theory, a lack of a permanent CIA Director does not cripple the government.
You can (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You can (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights [wikipedia.org]
True, the constitution doesn't define what "law" is, but the Supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of the law of the US. And while "war" might be a mitigating factor, secret tribunals are not permitted.
Ron Wyden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a fan of Wyden, and voted for him, but this subject is nonsense. A bunch of ignorant plebes are getting all worked up about drones, but if you say all thr same things in the context of an F-18 doing it they have no problems.
"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."
How is that different then:
that no American should be killed by a police officer on American soil without first being charged w
Re:Ron Wyden (Score:4, Insightful)
I am a fan of Wyden, and voted for him, but this subject is nonsense. A bunch of ignorant plebes are getting all worked up about drones, but if you say all thr same things in the context of an F-18 doing it they have no problems.
"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." How is that different then: that no American should be killed by a police officer on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.
also: Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. why not: Paul also said that he was “alarmed” at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by Navy Ship strikes.
“Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked. “Are you going to drop a bunkerbuster bomb on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.
seriously? It's stupid.
This is about tax votes, avoiding responsibility for they sequestration, and not wanting Brennan. This has nothing to do with the military attack american on american soil.
But when police shoot people on American soil, they have to claim self-defense since they are not executioners. Armed drones ARE executioners and thus should not be used on American soil. Or am I missing something? Why in the world would we ever want to do this or not be willing to give a simple "no" answer to the question of whether we will?
If you think about it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, AG Holder specifically said that it has never happened.
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf [senate.gov]
once you go Martial Law, you can't go back. (Score:5, Interesting)
I listened for an hour or so while I got other work done and didn't find any room for disagreement with him. Well, 99.5% is pretty good.
Dr. Paul's presentation of Obama's position as a weak form of martial law is airtight in its logic. If the United States is operating under the Rule of Law, then Obama/Holder's position cannot hold. If Obama's position does hold, then the territory of the United States is under battlefield rules, or martial law conditions.
That it's "soft martial law" isn't comforting to anybody who's read history or studied the Constitution and laws.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Obama asserts that due process does not necessarily imply trial by a jury of your peers.
Then perhaps President "Constitutional Scholar" should consider reading the document he supposedly went to school to study, specifically:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
In short, I don't give two fucks what some asshat politician 'asserts,' the definition is there, in plain fucking English, so that everyone will know their rights.
Macro Rubio / Rand Paul 2016 (Score:3, Interesting)
The ticket to win 538 electoral votes.
I haven't agreed with Rand Paul's politics much... (Score:5, Insightful)
but this is definitely a great moment for him. I hope he can keep it going until he forces an answer out of the White House.
This is how filibusters ought to be done!
Re:Um... (Score:4, Insightful)
From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.
Uh, I think you missed the point. Fonda was viewed by many Americans as a traitor during the Vietnam War, both for the things she said, and for an incident where she was photographed sitting on a NVA anti-aircraft gun (which she has explained was unintentional, but nobody bought that).
The comparison to Fonda is meant to bring up an image of a hated, anti-American citizen who might be worthy of getting taken out. That's the reference he was making.
Re:Um... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because back then, if you asked the President, "Is it legal for you to order the assassination of an American citizen, in America, without trial," he would have said "No!" without hesitation. Same with the Supreme Court.
Now, if you ask the President, he will not say "No." He won't say "Yes" either, but failing to answer such an easy question with a clear "No" speaks for itself. And the Supreme Court will not say "No" either; they will say "You can't sue us regarding your potential assassination by the United States government until such time as you can prove you were actually harmed by being assassinated by the United States government. Case dismissed."
The law has changed for the worse since the days of the Vietnam War. This isn't about drones.
Re: (Score:3)
From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.
You obviously haven't seen Barbarella [imdb.com].
Neither have I. :p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:People don't seem to understand what a drone is (Score:5, Insightful)