PDA

View Full Version : White House responds to Rand Paul: No authority to drone-kill Americans on US soil




itshappening
03-07-2013, 12:56 PM
win.

-
The U.S. does not have the authority to use a drone attack against a U.S. citizen not engaged in combat on U.S. soil, Attorney General Eric Holder told Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in a Thursday letter.

White House press secretary Jay Carney reveled the letter at his Thursday press briefing. It was sent in response to a 13-hour filibuster Paul held on the Senate floor Wednesday to criticize the administration’s drone policy.

“The president has not and would not use drone strikes against American citizens on American soil,” Carney said.

The new letter from Holder is a slight shift in position from an earlier letter he sent to Paul last week. In that letter, Holder said it was unlikely the U.S. would use a drone attack against in American in the U.S., but that it was possible in response to a September 11, 2001-type attack.

Paul criticized the administration’s position in his filibuster, which he used to block a confirmation vote on Obama’s nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan.

“No one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country,” Paul said during his marathon effort, which won support from senators on both sides of the aisle.

Brennan is likely to win confirmation, and Paul’s position on drones and filibuster came under criticism on Thursday from GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.).

The administration’s policies on drones have come under increased scrutiny, and Holder indicated earlier this week that Obama will soon publicly address the issue.

Carney said Thursday that the timing of an Obama address had not been set but would take place in the “coming months.”

The press secretary also criticized Paul for holding up Brennan’s confirmation.

“This debate has nothing to do with the qualifications of John Brennan. Sen. Paul said as much yesterday,” Carney said.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/286841-holder-to-paul-no-drone-strikes-against-americans-on-american-soil#ixzz2MsjaSbzY

Todd
03-07-2013, 12:57 PM
Winning.

supermario21
03-07-2013, 12:58 PM
Yeah, take that John, Lindsey, and Barack.

Created4
03-07-2013, 01:00 PM
Definitely a win! Loss for Graham and McCain though...What are they thinking in attacking Paul??

staerker
03-07-2013, 01:01 PM
To clear up the ambiguous phraseology of Carney, http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/07/holderpaulltr2.html

TheState
03-07-2013, 01:01 PM
Link to the letter, http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/07/holderpaulltr2.html

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 01:03 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/9kmh6w.jpg

FSP-Rebel
03-07-2013, 01:11 PM
And what a righteous victory this is, one aspect of tyranny suffered defeat on 3-7-13 after Rand's 13-hr filibuster. #LibertyIsRising
http://i46.tinypic.com/2zf28g4.jpg

randpaul2016
03-07-2013, 01:12 PM
In a letter right now during the interview on Fox News the White House said No they wont kill unarmed citizens on US soil

Rand didn't even know about the response, Fox News got it first.

jllundqu
03-07-2013, 01:13 PM
Source???

Darguth
03-07-2013, 01:13 PM
In a letter right now during the interview on Fox News the White House said No they wont kill unarmed citizens on US soil

Rand didn't even know about the response, Fox News got it first.

No, no, no. They did not say that they "won't", because they've been saying that for awhile. They said that they "can't". They lack the authority to do so.

That distinction is VERY important. It's the entire reason Rand filibustered. It's important we understand it, so that others may as well.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 01:13 PM
The letter still leaves a lot of wiggle room. It limits the answer to "weaponized drone" and "not engaged in combat" is still vague. Was Al Awlaki "engaged in combat"? That's still a judgment that's presumably left up to the President.

RabbitMan
03-07-2013, 01:14 PM
Well that settles it then. Are we done here? He said on American soil, above poster, so Al-Alwaki was fair game.

sevin
03-07-2013, 01:15 PM
I knew this would happen.

I don't mean to belittle Rand's filibuster, but in the end all he did was force Holder to lie.

Todd
03-07-2013, 01:16 PM
Definitely a win! Loss for Graham and McCain though...What are they thinking in attacking Paul??

because they have to appease all their donors who are for expanding the war machine at home. They are losing control.

I'm reminded of Star Wars. "The more you hold your grip Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

jllundqu
03-07-2013, 01:16 PM
The letter still leaves a lot of wiggle room. It limits the answer to "weaponized drone" and "not engaged in combat" is still vague. Was Al Awlaki "engaged in combat"? That's still a judgment that's presumably left up to the President.

Regardless it is a major political victory for Paul...

There are a lot of people eating crow and wiping egg off their faces right now.... there is already major 2016 buzz happening.

cajuncocoa
03-07-2013, 01:17 PM
I don't trust them, no matter what they say.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 01:21 PM
The letter still leaves a lot of wiggle room. It limits the answer to "weaponized drone" and "not engaged in combat" is still vague. Was Al Awlaki "engaged in combat"? That's still a judgment that's presumably left up to the President.

I think the phrase "weaponized drone" leaves little to be worried about. Unless you think they're going to fly drones into people or structures? I don't see that as a rationale fear.

Regarding al-Awlaki, two points:

1.) He wasn't on U.S. soil. That distinction is important. Rand wants a debate about our foreign use of drones, but this stance and this victory was to clarify the authority to use them within American territory only.

2.) The phrase "engaged in combat" is perhaps somewhat vague but again I'm not overly concerned with it. It's significantly more specific than they've been in the past and is pretty much exactly the answer Rand (and I) was looking for here.

Even with the vagueness though I don't think we can really hope for a more committal answer than what we received. When the Administration tries to warp the word of "imminent" to no longer mean "immediate" you can only trust their words so much anyway.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 01:24 PM
I think the phrase "weaponized drone" leaves little to be worried about. Unless you think they're going to fly drones into people or structures? I don't see that as a rationale fear.

My point is the same point Dick Durbin raised last night. This isn't about drones, it's about lethal force. Drones are just a tool and the answer is limited to one specific tool to cause lethal force.


Regarding al-Awlaki, two points:

1.) He wasn't on U.S. soil. That distinction is important. Rand wants a debate about our foreign use of drones, but this stance and this victory was to clarify the authority to use them within American territory only.

2.) The phrase "engaged in combat" is perhaps somewhat vague but again I'm not overly concerned with it. It's significantly more specific than they've been in the past and is pretty much exactly the answer Rand (and I) was looking for here.

Even with the vagueness though I don't think we can really hope for a more committal answer than what we received. When the Administration tries to warp the word of "imminent" to no longer mean "immediate" you can only trust their words so much anyway.

I'm not arguing al-Awlaki's geographic location. My point is that he was labeled as an "enemy combatant" and was subject to be killed. If another US citizen in the US were labeled as an "enemy combatant" would that mean they are "engaged in combat"? Basically, if al-Awlaki were in the US, how would Eric Holder's answer apply to him?

acptulsa
03-07-2013, 01:24 PM
I don't trust them, no matter what they say.

I don't blame you. But little distinctions like this thing that Rand Paul forced out of this White House can make the difference between the president not getting away with it--like Nixon and Watergate--and the president getting away with it--like Reagan and Iran-Contra.

Keeping the populace awake and energized about something is the main way--and really the only way--to maintain a stumbling block to tyranny.

cajuncocoa
03-07-2013, 01:26 PM
I don't blame you. But little distinctions like this thing that Rand Paul forced out of this White House can make the difference between the president not getting away with it--like Nixon and Watergate--and the president getting away with it--like Reagan and Iran-Contra.

Keeping the populace awake and energized about something is the main way--and really the only way--to maintain a stumbling block to tyranny.
That's true...the fact that it generated any response from the White House is a victory for Rand and all who supported his filibuster yesterday.

Lucille
03-07-2013, 01:28 PM
http://www.unitedliberty.org/files/images/rand-paul-won.png

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/12934-eric-holder-to-rand-paul-no-the-president-cant-kill-americans-on-american-soil

How about just shooting them? Does he think he has that authority?

rubioneocon
03-07-2013, 01:28 PM
I don't trust them, no matter what they say.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/23589244.jpg

LibertyEagle
03-07-2013, 01:34 PM
No, no, no. They did not say that they "won't", because they've been saying that for awhile. They said that they "can't". They lack the authority to do so.

That distinction is VERY important. It's the entire reason Rand filibustered. It's important we understand it, so that others may as well.

I agree.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 01:38 PM
My point is the same point Dick Durbin raised last night. This isn't about drones, it's about lethal force. Drones are just a tool and the answer is limited to one specific tool to cause lethal force.

Except it isn't. At least it wasn't to Rand last night. He was talking specifically about the drone program. That's why Holder's answer specifically marked them out. Not out of some underhanded way to allow fighter-bombers or cruise missiles to still be legitimate tools to use against Americans at home.

Much of the discussion is also about prevailing norms. No one suspects the Administration believes it has the authority to use a warship, or a cruise missile, or a SEAL team, etc. to target specific American individuals at home with lethal force. This is because such tools have existed significantly longer than drones and more importantly there is not a large push to start integrating them into American law enforcement, as we're seeing with drones.


I'm not arguing al-Awlaki's geographic location. My point is that he was labeled as an "enemy combatant" and was subject to be killed. If another US citizen in the US were labeled as an "enemy combatant" would that mean they are "engaged in combat"? Basically, if al-Awlaki were in the US, how would Eric Holder's answer apply to him?

And, again, I'd agree with you that in this regard the answer is still somewhat vague. We don't know exactly what is meant by "engaged in combat". Does that mean that I'm actively pointing a bazooka at you? Or does it simply mean that I'm a combatant for drawing up plans to build or finance the purchase of that bazooka?

That unfortunately remains to be seen. However, there is also historical evidence and Holder's own previous comments that this is the purview of domestic law enforcement. The specific scenarios Holder has highlighted for potential use of lethal military force (9/11 and Pearl Harbor) were both acts of active, immediate combat operations.

The previous comments combined with this letter lead me to believe that had al-Awlaki been in the United States he would have been apprehended, not droned. At least that is the policy being clarified and expressed.

Deborah K
03-07-2013, 01:39 PM
Rand's filibuster has brought attention to the inevitability of drones flying legally over the States. It has served to put a nasty taste in the mouths of the American people where drones are concerned.

Now that it's been 'clarified' that it's unconstitutional to kill non-combative Americans in the U.S., the next steps will be in dealing with how law enforcement (local, state, and federal) can use drones against Americans to subdue us, spie on us, monitor us, and so on. Mark my words, drones will be flying over our skies in the near future by the hundreds and thousands, both private and govt. drones. Legislation is in the pike.

This just opened up a can of worms that needed to be opened up.

Check this out. http://www.uxvuniversity.com/

coastie
03-07-2013, 01:40 PM
Obama Has No Authority For Drone Strikes Against Americans On U.S. Soil, White House Says:


WASHINGTON -- White House press secretary Jay Carney on Thursday tried to put to rest a simmering debate over President Barack Obama's drone policy, stating in clear terms that the president doesn't have the legal authority to, hypothetically, order drone strikes on Americans on U.S. soil.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/obama-drone-strikes_n_2830174.html

well, I'll be damned...

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 01:43 PM
The previous comments combined with this letter lead me to believe that had al-Awlaki been in the United States he would have been apprehended, not droned. At least that is the policy being clarified and expressed.

The Administration has already stated that they don't use drones unless apprehension is not feasible. You would think that apprehension is always feasible in the US if there is no imminent threat which would leave Rand's question moot.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 01:43 PM
How about just shooting them? Does he think he has that authority?

I think comments like these are now being deliberately obtuse, and unfortunately lend credence to McCain's claims of ridiculousness and paranoia.

If you're expecting or want a comprehensive list--with nothing omitted for the sake of specificity and brevity--of what tools the Administration doesn't have the authority to kill you with, then I think you're missing the entire point of what's going on.

AngryCanadian
03-07-2013, 01:43 PM
Not Very Trust worthy

He didn't even answer Rand Paul questions he just said No.

rubioneocon
03-07-2013, 01:44 PM
Well drones do play into the matter of surveillance so they can still be used against American citizens in non-lethal force ways . . . not good.

UpperDecker
03-07-2013, 01:47 PM
"Not engaged in combat" is not good enough. Their qualifications for combatants overseas is shady enough, I am sure they would use the same here.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 01:47 PM
I think comments like these are now being deliberately obtuse, and unfortunately lend credence to McCain's claims of ridiculousness and paranoia.

If you're expecting or want a comprehensive list--with nothing omitted for the sake of specificity and brevity--of what tools the Administration doesn't have the authority to kill you with, then I think you're missing the entire point of what's going on.

The point is targeted killing, not specifically drones. I know Rand's specific questions were about drones and its great that we have an answer to that but in the bigger picture of things, the practice of targeted killings is the problem. All of it could have been resolved if the question Eric Holder answered had "lethal force" in place of "weaponized drones". You don't need to have a comprehensive list.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 01:48 PM
The Administration has already stated that they don't use drones unless apprehension is not feasible. You would think that apprehension is always feasible in the US if there is no imminent threat which would leave Rand's question moot.

I don't accept your premise in the slightest. Apprehension is not always feasible in the US--as it was described by the Administration--any more than it is always feasible abroad.

The feasibility of capturing a man holed up in a compound in a hostile region of Yemen is no more or less feasible to catch than say a man holed up in a secure compound in the United States with a huge stockpile of supplies.

Both are simply a matter of risk and cost. Feasibility is an extremely loose term in either scenario. I don't think Rand's question was moot at all.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
03-07-2013, 01:48 PM
"Not engaged in combat" is not good enough. Their qualifications for combatants overseas is shady enough, I am sure they would use the same here.

Ain't that the truth.

kcchiefs6465
03-07-2013, 01:49 PM
"Not engaged in combat" is not good enough. Their qualifications for combatants overseas is shady enough, I am sure they would use the same here.
Not to mention their skewed understanding of what constitutes an imminent threat. [immediate vs. future]

ZENemy
03-07-2013, 01:49 PM
LOL, yea, cause Obama always follows the rules.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 01:49 PM
The point is targeted killing, not specifically drones. I know Rand's specific questions were about drones and its great that we have an answer to that but in the bigger picture of things, the practice of targeted killings is the problem. All of it could have been resolved if the question Eric Holder answered had "lethal force" in place of "weaponized drones". You don't need to have a comprehensive list.

That's fine and dandy, but that's not what Rand asked, actually. He spent 13 hours talking about drones. I don't find it sinister that the answer we received mentioned drones instead of a generic "lethal force" phrasing.

acptulsa
03-07-2013, 01:51 PM
I don't accept your premise in the slightest. Apprehension is not always feasible in the US--as it was described by the Administration--any more than it is always feasible abroad.

The feasibility of capturing a man holed up in a compound in a hostile region of Yemen is no more or less feasible to catch than say a man holed up in a secure compound in the United States with a huge stockpile of supplies.

Both are simply a matter of risk and cost. Feasibility is an extremely loose term in either scenario. I don't think Rand's question was moot at all.

Of course, Rand admitted that armed people are liable to be on the receiving end of deadly force. And, you know, I don't think whether the 'prime suspect' is one of the ones actively defending the compound or not really matters much to a Hellfire Missile...

Anti Federalist
03-07-2013, 01:51 PM
This is not an assault!

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

Acala
03-07-2013, 01:52 PM
No matter WHAT he said, he couldn't be trusted. BUT Rand drew a line in the sand and the mighty executive wouldn't cross it. It was a win for limited government.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 01:53 PM
I don't accept your premise in the slightest. Apprehension is not always feasible in the US--as it was described by the Administration--any more than it is always feasible abroad.

Ok I think you misunderstood my point from the last comment. I was trying to say that the Administration always tries to apprehend first. If that is not feasible, then they'll consider a drone strike. You basically said that you think the Administration would apprehend Al-Awlaki and I agree with that because their policy is first apprehension.

I guess what I was trying to ask is that what if apprehension of Al-Awlaki was not feasible in the US? Would the President still have the legal authority to kill him if he didn't pose an imminent threat (in the Rand Paul sense where he's holding a grenade launcher)?

Anti Federalist
03-07-2013, 01:54 PM
Not to mention their skewed understanding of what constitutes an imminent threat. [immediate vs. future]

Someone could be surveying the dead, smoking, phosphorus burned bodies scattered around the smoking crater that was once their home and government will tell say, "Oh that? That was...sunspots".

Anti Federalist
03-07-2013, 01:54 PM
No matter WHAT he said, he couldn't be trusted. BUT Rand drew a line in the sand and the mighty executive wouldn't cross it. It was a win for limited government.

Agreed, and a hearty Huzzah for Rand.

jllundqu
03-07-2013, 01:56 PM
This is not an assault!

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

I took a shit in this guys toilet then made his house my battalion HQ

SilentBull
03-07-2013, 01:57 PM
It doesn't matter what they said. Rand just forced the assholes to respond and admit they don't have the authority to do whatever they want. Win!

Lucille
03-07-2013, 01:59 PM
I think comments like these are now being deliberately obtuse, and unfortunately lend credence to McCain's claims of ridiculousness and paranoia.

If you're expecting or want a comprehensive list--with nothing omitted for the sake of specificity and brevity--of what tools the Administration doesn't have the authority to kill you with, then I think you're missing the entire point of what's going on.

And here I thought it was about preserving our 5th amendment right to due process. Stupid, silly me. Little did I know all this was really about what tools the executive branch can and can't use to execute U.S. citizens after it plays judge and jury.

Good to know.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 02:00 PM
I guess what I was trying to ask is that what if apprehension of Al-Awlaki was not feasible in the US? Would the President still have the legal authority to kill him if he didn't pose an imminent threat (in the Rand Paul sense where he's holding a grenade launcher)?

And I think we got our answer: No.

If al-Awlaki was in the United States, was not engaged in combat, and yet somehow it was still not feasible to apprehend him then the Administration lacks the authority to kill him.

For the sake of hypothetical let's say that a terrorist suspect (American citizen) wasn't engaged in combat but was rather just evading authorities so well that he couldn't be caught by boots on the ground, but *could* be spotted and targeted with a drone, the Administration is saying that they can't just kill him just because it's easier. At least on American soil.

It's a fine line, I'll grant you, but I think this is still a big win. It might not change much practically (it was likely never going to anyway) but this got a lot of people talking across-the-aisle about our "War Without End or Borders" philosophy and shoved a leading liberty politicians into the national spotlight.

That's a win. A big win.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 02:01 PM
That's fine and dandy, but that's not what Rand asked, actually. He spent 13 hours talking about drones. I don't find it sinister that the answer we received mentioned drones instead of a generic "lethal force" phrasing.

Rand mentioned "lethal force" 82 times last night. I know his specific questions were about drones but Rand is also worried about lethal force. Look all I'm saying is that it's great the White House responded but this doesn't settle everything. It's a great victory but the battle is not over.

Rand wrote Brennan three letters. These were his first questions in the first two letters:


Do you agree with the argument put forth on numerous occasions by the Executive Branch that it is legal to order the killing of American citizens and that it is not compelled to explain its reasoning in reaching this conclusion?


Do you believe that the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil? What about the use of lethal force against a non-U.S. person on U.S. soil?

Those are questions that still need to be answered.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 02:02 PM
And here I thought it was about preserving our 5th amendment right to due process. Stupid, silly me. Little did I know all this was really about what tools the executive branch can and can't use to execute U.S. citizens after it plays judge and jury.

Good to know.

Yeah, you're just being deliberately obtuse. This was still about the 5th Amendment and due process. You're the one making this about the tools, not me. Please return under your bridge.

libertygrl
03-07-2013, 02:03 PM
I don't trust them, no matter what they say.

I'm with you. Holder's a lawyer afterall. Watch the wording carefully.

Lucille
03-07-2013, 02:03 PM
The point is targeted killing, not specifically drones. I know Rand's specific questions were about drones and its great that we have an answer to that but in the bigger picture of things, the practice of targeted killings is the problem. All of it could have been resolved if the question Eric Holder answered had "lethal force" in place of "weaponized drones". You don't need to have a comprehensive list.

That would have been good enough for me.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 02:04 PM
And I think we got our answer: No.

If al-Awlaki was in the United States, was not engaged in combat, and yet somehow it was still not feasible to apprehend him then the Administration lacks the authority to kill him.

See that's where I disagree. I don't think we have a clear answer on al-Awlaki. The Administration used the reasoning that he was an "enemy combatant" and ordered him killed. My question is, which hasn't been answered, is does the Administration believe that an "enemy combatant" is "engaged in combat"? If they believe so, then if they declared al-Awlaki an "enemy combatant" then they believe they can kill him in the US if apprehension is not feasible.

tangent4ronpaul
03-07-2013, 02:04 PM
"Not engaged in combat" is not good enough. Their qualifications for combatants overseas is shady enough, I am sure they would use the same here.

Very true
+rep


"The president has not and would not use drone strkes against Americans citzines on American soil," Carney said. "The legal authorities that exist to use lethal force are bound by, constrained by, the law and the Constitution. The issue here isn't the technology .... Whether it's a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way."

Was it Holder or Biden that commented recently that they didn't need drones for that in the US because the police can take care of problems...

DAMN RIGHT! - Those Hellfires cost 25K each! We are in a recession here! USA, USA, USA! - F' YEAH!

Why waste 25K when they can just use the drone to find and track um, then tell the SWAT team where to set up the ambush... Dorner style! Or maybe I should say Bonnie and Clyde style...

:rolleyes:

-t

kcchiefs6465
03-07-2013, 02:06 PM
Someone could be surveying the dead, smoking, phosphorus burned bodies scattered around the smoking crater that was once their home and government will tell say, "Oh that? That was...sunspots".
Did you see the Granny terrrists? After all was said and done the 74 year old woman only had to say this, "Don't you guys have anything better to do?"

Darguth
03-07-2013, 02:07 PM
See that's where I disagree. I don't think we have a clear answer on al-Awlaki. The Administration used the reasoning that he was an "enemy combatant" and ordered him killed. My question is, which hasn't been answered, is does the Administration believe that an "enemy combatant" is "engaged in combat"? If they believe so, then if they declared al-Awlaki an "enemy combatant" then they believe they can kill him in the US if apprehension is not feasible.

I don't think "enemy combatant" and "engaged in combat" are synonymous. Those held in Gitmo are still considered "enemy combatants", but I don't think even the Administration would claim that they are "engaged in combat" while still being imprisoned.

TheGrinch
03-07-2013, 02:09 PM
It doesn't matter what they said. Rand just forced the assholes to respond and admit they don't have the authority to do whatever they want. Win!

Precisely, this isn't a matter of if Obama is being honest or not, it's a matter of forcing them to publicly say they don't have this authority. It will only make it more difficult to hide behind executive power later without mass-criticism.

kcchiefs6465
03-07-2013, 02:09 PM
See that's where I disagree. I don't think we have a clear answer on al-Awlaki. The Administration used the reasoning that he was an "enemy combatant" and ordered him killed. My question is, which hasn't been answered, is does the Administration believe that an "enemy combatant" is "engaged in combat"? If they believe so, then if they declared al-Awlaki an "enemy combatant" then they believe they can kill him in the US if apprehension is not feasible.
Yes they do. And yes they do/will. They defined imminent as not immediate. They labeled Al Awlaki an imminent threat. That was their 'legal' justification for doing so. [killing him] It can happen here. Durbin says the means of how they dealt with an 'imminent' threat [remember, not immediate, but a possible threat in the future] was inconsequential. Whether it be drones, or a gun shot.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 02:10 PM
I don't think "enemy combatant" and "engaged in combat" are synonymous. Those held in Gitmo are still considered "enemy combatants", but I don't think even the Administration would claim that they are "engaged in combat" while still being imprisoned.

What do you think was the Administration's reasoning for killing al-Awlaki? Was it that he was "engaged in combat"?

Darguth
03-07-2013, 02:10 PM
Precisely, this isn't a matter of if Obama is being honest or not, it's a matter of forcing them to publicly say they don't have this authority. It will only make it more difficult to hide behind executive power later without mass-criticism.

^ Someone who gets it. ^

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 02:14 PM
^ Someone who gets it. ^

I think you're not seeing my point of view. If al-Awlaki was declared to be "engaged in combat" while sitting in a car, what prevents the Administration from declaring a US citizen in the US doing the same thing as al-Awlaki as "engaged in combat" and ordered him killed if apprehension is not feasible?

The answer Holder gave says that they cannot kill anyone not "engaged in combat" but who determines whether someone is "engaged in combat"? Who determined whether al-Awlaki was engaged? Isn't that why Ron Paul was so upset?

kcchiefs6465
03-07-2013, 02:16 PM
^ Someone who gets it. ^
Wow... I understand the significance of what Rand Paul did. That does not change one damn thing about the prdcedent set with Obama's interpretation of what is an imminent threat is. [not immediate] You don't get it. They already assassinated an American citizen without due process because he maybe could have been a threat in the future. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I'll spell it out real simply like, they labeled an American citizen and imminent threat because he may pose a risk in the future. They assassinated him without due process. They have affirmed they can do as much here and rather, that they should do as much here. Whether that be hanging you until dead, or dropping a missile on your shanty. The processes of death have been deemed inconsequential. Rand Paul does not want that happening to Americans on American soil, but he also state Al Awlaki should have been afforded due process.

AngryCanadian
03-07-2013, 02:18 PM
As they responded the left started on attacking Rand and also this response is weak.

TheGrinch
03-07-2013, 02:21 PM
I think you're not seeing my point of view. If al-Awlaki was declared to be "engaged in combat" while sitting in a car, what prevents the Administration from declaring a US citizen in the US doing the same thing as al-Awlaki as "engaged in combat" and ordered him killed if apprehension is not feasible?

The answer Holder gave says that they cannot kill anyone not "engaged in combat" but who determines whether someone is "engaged in combat"? Who determined whether al-Awlaki was engaged? Isn't that why Ron Paul was so upset?

What's important is that the door has been opened for discussion of that, drones even for surveillence, etc.

If you think this is just about getting the White House to make a disengenous statement, that's a bit short-sighted. This is much bigger than that. It's about holding their feet to the fire on what they can and can't do. Maybe people will actually make a stink now on all matters of due process in the future.

TheGrinch
03-07-2013, 02:22 PM
As they responded the left started on attacking Rand and also this response is weak.

Seems like similar tactics as the establsihment republican puppets, "This is so absurd that we shouldn't even be asking it"... If it's so absurd, then why was it such a problem to get them to admit it?

tangent4ronpaul
03-07-2013, 02:23 PM
I think the phrase "weaponized drone" leaves little to be worried about. Unless you think they're going to fly drones into people or structures? I don't see that as a rationale fear.

To play devils advocate:
What is "weaponized"? Generally that is something that can cause harm that is launched from a delivery vehicle.
What is a drone? - it has a brain, can be per-programmed or remotely controlled.
What is a smart munition? - it has a brain, can be per-programmed or remotely controlled.
What is a Hellfire missle? - it has a brain, can be per-programmed or remotely controlled.
Is something "weaponized" if it has a self destruct mechanism in case of crash so technology doesn't fall into enemy hands?

Remember the article on the USAF developing insect sized drones, including mosquito sized ones that could carry poison... Is that weaponized?

-t

jllundqu
03-07-2013, 02:24 PM
I do wish Rand had talked more about the overall drone policy (overseas, killing civilians, US Citizens, etc) but I suppose this move will spark that debate further.

EBounding
03-07-2013, 02:25 PM
The genie is already out of the bottle; no one trusts the president. It's pleasing though to see the White House submit to the Junior Senator from Kentucky.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 02:27 PM
Wow... I understand the significance of what Rand Paul did. That does not change one damn thing about the prdcedent set with Obama's interpretation of what is an imminent threat is. [not immediate] You don't get it. They already assassinated an American citizen without due process because he maybe could have been a threat in the future. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I'll spell it out real simply like, they labeled an American citizen and imminent threat because he may pose a risk in the future. They assassinated him without due process. They have affirmed they can do as much here and rather, that they should do as much here. Whether that be hanging you until dead, or dropping a missile on your shanty. The processes of death have been deemed inconsequential. Rand Paul does not want that happening to Americans on American soil, but he also state Al Awlaki should have been afforded due process.

I think you and tsai3904 are misunderstanding me, that I'm not supporting what happened the al-Awlaki. I agree with both of you, and Rand, and Ron, that he should have been captured and afforded due process in the American legal system.

What I am stating, is that I think the clarification Rand forced the Administration to concede is significant even if it is minor. Even the DOJ white paper on al-Awlaki stated that he was "engaged in planning operations to kill Americans". That, to me, does not sound synonymous with "engaged in combat".

Can I know for sure? Of course not. And even if the Administration made it plain as day that those two conditions are *not* the same (meaning al-Awlaki couldn't be targeted in the U.S.) I wouldn't trust them at their word.

However, whatever legalese the administration may use today or tomorrow to wiggle their way out of the "engaged in combat" phrase, the very simple fact that Rand got them to make this statement/concession to the American public is significant because the American people--I think--understand what "engaged in combat" really means. Regardless of whatever fancy-word two-step the Administration may try in the future.

That's what's significant. No matter what the Administration says or doesn't, their words and promises will not protect us. The People's ability to hold them accountable for abuses of power *can* protect us though. It's a strong deterrent. This statement/concession is a strong tool for that in the realm of the public court, should we ever need to use it.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 02:28 PM
What's important is that the door has been opened for discussion of that, drones even for surveillence, etc.

If you think this is just about getting the White House to make a disengenous statement, that's a bit short-sighted. This is much bigger than that. It's about holding their feet to the fire on what they can and can't do. Maybe people will actually make a stink now on all matters of due process in the future.

Can't give you more +rep. Sorry bro :)

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 02:29 PM
If you think this is just about getting the White House to make a disengenous statement, that's a bit short-sighted. This is much bigger than that. It's about holding their feet to the fire on what they can and can't do. Maybe people will actually make a stink now on all matters of due process in the future.

I completely agree. I think what Rand was able to accomplish is great but it doesn't end with that letter from Holder, which is why I'm still asking questions and holding their feet to the fire.

kcchiefs6465
03-07-2013, 02:30 PM
What's important is that the door has been opened for discussion of that, drones even for surveillence, etc.

If you think this is just about getting the White House to make a disengenous statement, that's a bit short-sighted. This is much bigger than that. It's about holding their feet to the fire on what they can and can't do. Maybe people will actually make a stink now on all matters of due process in the future.
Yes it is. And Rand Paul feels the same as I in stating that you own the airspace above your land. I believe he also mentioned a reasonable expectation of privacy whether you be in your home, or whether you be in your backyard. I like that. This technology can be abused many ways.

itshappening
03-07-2013, 02:30 PM
I completely agree. I think what Rand was able to accomplish is great but it doesn't end with that letter from Holder, which is why I'm still asking questions and holding their feet to the fire.

It won't end with that letter but Rand has declared victory and will move on, that's the sensible thing to do.

The wider debate about drones has been unleashed and now congress will probably put in place some framework

TheGrinch
03-07-2013, 02:32 PM
Can't give you more +rep. Sorry bro :)

No worries, truth is more important than my narcissism.

There is no reason we shouldn't celebrate every time that we can get conversations like this into the discourse. It's unbelievable to me that Rand was even able to get them to talk to about things like this.

This will always be an uphill battle with more to be done, but things are getting to a tipping point, so we cannot dwell on what is still left to combat. We must seize it.

McChronagle
03-07-2013, 02:33 PM
I can't wait to find out what the qualifications are to be considered "engaged in combat on American soil." Rand made it pretty clear how theyve completely made up a new definition of "imminent threat" to suit their needs. I'm not saying this was a useless filibuster as this has woken up and rallied many americans. But this will not stop them from doing what they please.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 02:33 PM
It won't end with that letter but Rand has declared victory and will move on, that's the sensible thing to do.

Yes lets move on and keep holding them accountable. This just reminds me of the indefinite detention issue when Rand supported Feinstein's amendment and declared victory while Amash wasn't going to let the issue drop. We shouldn't declare victory and forget about this.

Darguth
03-07-2013, 02:33 PM
It won't end with that letter but Rand has declared victory and will move on, that's the sensible thing to do.

The wider debate about drones has been unleashed and now congress will probably put in place some framework

I agree. We're not going to get everything we want in this moment. This is a long fight and we need to take our wins where we can and build upon the momentum.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 02:35 PM
Rand just voted against Brennan's confirmation.

dinosaur
03-07-2013, 02:39 PM
Rand just voted against Brennan's confirmation.

Against confirmation, or against ending debate? The vote for confirmation is taking place right now.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 02:41 PM
Against confirmation, or against ending debate? The vote for confirmation is taking place right now.

Against confirmation. A reporter on the floor just tweeted it.

supermario21
03-07-2013, 02:41 PM
He did vote for cloture, so a reverse of the Hagel proceedings.

MaxPower
03-07-2013, 02:44 PM
See that's where I disagree. I don't think we have a clear answer on al-Awlaki. The Administration used the reasoning that he was an "enemy combatant" and ordered him killed. My question is, which hasn't been answered, is does the Administration believe that an "enemy combatant" is "engaged in combat"? If they believe so, then if they declared al-Awlaki an "enemy combatant" then they believe they can kill him in the US if apprehension is not feasible.
Yes, that's the thing-- when our humble public servants refer to someone as a "combatant," they clearly take the term to mean something much different from what the rest of us do; that they would also have, shall we say, an esoteric definition of the word "combat" (that in which "combatants" engage) would come as no shock.

Nevertheless, the significant thing here is the victory Rand has obtained for us in principle-- he challenged the administration to go all the way with their rationale that the "War on Terror" is waged everywhere at all times and justifies the de facto abolition of the Bill of Rights, and they backed down. It is sad that it had to come to this-- literally to the question of whether or not the president simply has a license to kill anyone, anywhere, any time, at his discretion-- before enough public outrage could be stirred up to make them feel the heat, but feel it they did.

dinosaur
03-07-2013, 02:44 PM
Against confirmation. A reporter on the floor just tweeted it.

They just read results on C-Span. Paul voted against confirmation and Rubio voted for confirmation.

D.A.S.
03-07-2013, 02:48 PM
We're not going to get everything we want in this moment. This is a long fight and we need to take our wins where we can and build upon the momentum.

It was very smart of Rand to pose a very specific question and hammer it home until he got a response. He showed the system of checks and balances at work. Was it a limited question? Yes. But by concentrating on the specific and incendiary issue of drone-killing of US Citizens on the US soil, he was able to get a lot of people to support his filibuster - people who would have never supported his filibuster if it delved into the matters of foreign policy and the Al-Awlaki matter.

I think this is how you start, slowly build up the coalition, and then gradually expand the debate. This put the national spotlight on Rand, and this is the sort of courage and leadership that American people need to see. Big score for Rand.

Deborah K
03-07-2013, 02:57 PM
What's important is that the door has been opened for discussion of that, drones even for surveillence, etc.

If you think this is just about getting the White House to make a disengenous statement, that's a bit short-sighted. This is much bigger than that. It's about holding their feet to the fire on what they can and can't do. Maybe people will actually make a stink now on all matters of due process in the future.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make here:


Rand's filibuster has brought attention to the inevitability of drones flying legally over the States. It has served to put a nasty taste in the mouths of the American people where drones are concerned.

Now that it's been 'clarified' that it's unconstitutional to kill non-combative Americans in the U.S., the next steps will be in dealing with how law enforcement (local, state, and federal) can use drones against Americans to subdue us, spie on us, monitor us, and so on. Mark my words, drones will be flying over our skies in the near future by the hundreds and thousands, both private and govt. drones. Legislation is in the pike.

This just opened up a can of worms that needed to be opened up.

Check this out. http://www.uxvuniversity.com/

Only you stated it better. ;)

RockEnds
03-07-2013, 03:02 PM
I'm really glad to hear this. This was a huge win for Rand. He got the response from Holder before the vote. Awesome!! Disingenuous or not, Holder did directly answer the question. And the best part of all was that DC learned that the American people are not nearly as sedated as previously believed.

newbitech
03-07-2013, 03:04 PM
"you have now asked an additional question"

there will be many more. Pay attention next time, dumbass.

Lucille
03-07-2013, 03:05 PM
Yeah, you're just being deliberately obtuse. This was still about the 5th Amendment and due process. You're the one making this about the tools, not me. Please return under your bridge.

As I said in my -rep, screw you, pal. I don't know what your problem is, but my comment was not an attack on Rand's inspiring and historic filibuster, m'kay? It was an attack on that POS Holder's word games. If you think they don't believe the executive branch has the authority to play judge, jury and executioner, then that bridge I'm allegedly under is for sale to you at a special price.

What Holder Really Said
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?406632-AG-Eric-Holder-White-House-responds-to-Rand-We-can-kill-you-if-we-think-ur-a-combatant


It took a 13-hour filibuster from Senator Rand Paul to wring this terse statement from Attorney General Eric Holder:

“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.”

Like all statements from people who presume to rule others, this brief message from Holder – – who is Nickolai Krylenko to Obama’s Josef Stalin – should be read in terms of the supposed authority claimed thereby. This means removing useless qualifiers in the interest of clarity.

What Holder is saying, in substantive terms, is that the President does have the supposed authority to use a drone to kill an American who is engaged in “combat,” whether here or abroad.

"Combat" can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel.

Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact.

This is a murderous application of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy," and it will be used when -- not if -- Obama or a successor starts conducting domestic drone-killing operations.

Holder selected a carefully qualified question in order to justify a narrowly tailored answer that reserves an expansive claim of executive power to authorize summary executions by the president.

That’s how totalitarians operate.

Hell, even the head Trot over at neo-Trot central can see that, and he's a pretty big fan of the bifactional ruling party's endless wars, the police state, and the Imperial presidency:


Also, before you celebrate, think carefully about whether Holder’s really answering his concerns. Paul wasn’t just asking about “weaponized drones.” He was asking about targeted killing generally. Sending the CIA in to shoot a guy in the head because he’s on O’s “kill list” doesn’t address the due process concerns just because no drone was used. The phrase “not engaged in combat” is also murky since the entire point of this debate is about defining what it means to be “engaged in combat” against the United States. Paul’s point yesterday was that, even if a U.S. citizen is an “enemy combatant,” the feds should be barred from summarily executing him if he’s on U.S. soil. Only if he’s in the process of carrying out an attack is lethal force justified. That’s his definition of “engaged in combat,” at least inside the continental U.S. The alternate definition is that an “enemy combatant” is, by his very nature, always engaged in combat against America. The DOJ itself more or less adopted that definition by defining “imminence” so broadly in its “white paper” on drone attacks as to suggest that members of Al Qaeda are always, at every moment, posing an imminent threat because they’re “continually plotting.” By that standard, Obama could drop a bomb on a U.S.-born jihadi hiding in an American safe house and still be okay under Holder’s letter here because the target was, as a member of Al Qaeda who was up to no good, necessarily “engaged in combat.”
hxxp://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/07/jay-carney-okay-fine-obama-doesnt-have-the-authority-to-target-americans-on-u-s-soil/

seapilot
03-07-2013, 03:10 PM
They just read results on C-Span. Paul voted against confirmation and Rubio voted for confirmation.

Rubio just proved he is all about attention getting and not principal. Perfect puppet material.

Melissa
03-07-2013, 03:11 PM
Has anyone seen the roll call yet...

puppetmaster
03-07-2013, 03:16 PM
but they can declare anyone they want an enemy combatant....../so what is the point holder....

kcchiefs6465
03-07-2013, 03:19 PM
but they can declare anyone they want an enemy combatant....../so what is the point holder....
And an imminent threat isn't necessarily an immediate threat. Still a step in the right direction. [that they even responded] There's a lot that needs to be done still.

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 03:20 PM
Has anyone seen the roll call yet...

No but:

GOP yes votes on #Brennan: Alexander, Burr, Coats, Coburn, Collins, Corker, Flake, Graham, Hatch, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Rubio
Democratic no votes on #Brennan: Merkley, Leahy, Sanders

Lucille
03-07-2013, 03:22 PM
The deliberately obtuse troll Brian Doherty would also like some clarification:

Did Rand Paul Win? White House Says No Authority to Kill Noncombatants on U.S. Soil
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/did-rand-paul-win-white-house-says-no-au


But who is a noncombatant? What constitutes engaging in hostile activities to the White House? Does this still leave the "we declare you a combatant" excuse? More clarity needed.

UPDATE: Via Politico, the complete text of a letter Attorney General Holder sent to Rand Paul today. In its entirety: "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."

Still: what defines "engaged in combat" to you guys? Doesn't seem to actively apply to most victims of overseas drones. Does it mean, as Lindsey Graham suggested, just being a member of Al-Queda, a topic on which the White House will undoubtedly declare itself sole judge (and then jury, and executioner)? Also, the mechanism of the kill--mechanized drone--isn't the sole issue at point here. It's summary executive power to decide who to kill without charge or trial in a Forever War.

Melissa
03-07-2013, 03:24 PM
Thanks so much..One of my Senators was at the dinner with the President last night then he posted on facebook how he supported what Rand did (of course he did not actually do anything to support Rand but hey if you facebook it...then it must be true right and I wanted to see how he voted today and of course he voted yes...real strong support there for Rand....
No but:

GOP yes votes on #Brennan: Alexander, Burr, Coats, Coburn, Collins, Corker, Flake, Graham, Hatch, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Rubio
Democratic no votes on #Brennan: Merkley, Leahy, Sanders

TheGrinch
03-07-2013, 03:25 PM
This is exactly the point I was trying to make here:



Only you stated it better. ;)

Not at all. Per my +rep to you:

your post was even better, mine was just succinct

tsai3904
03-07-2013, 03:25 PM
Thanks so much.

Off topic but if you are in Indiana, I would encourage you to try and get Joe Donnelly to cosponsor S. 209, Rand's Audit the Fed bill. He voted for it in the House last year and we need more Democratic cosponsors.

juleswin
03-07-2013, 03:27 PM
Definitely a win! Loss for Graham and McCain though...What are they thinking in attacking Paul??

They are showing their mavericky ness :)

Melissa
03-07-2013, 03:27 PM
I will try.. I have actually given up on Federal issues and we have been working very hard on our State house and getting these guys on record with their votes so we can primary some of them come next year...
Off topic but if you are in Indiana, I would encourage you to try and get Joe Donnelly to cosponsor S. 209, Rand's Audit the Fed bill. He voted for it in the House last year and we need more Democratic cosponsors.

tangent4ronpaul
03-07-2013, 03:29 PM
And, again, I'd agree with you that in this regard the answer is still somewhat vague. We don't know exactly what is meant by "engaged in combat". Does that mean that I'm actively pointing a bazooka at you? Or does it simply mean that I'm a combatant for drawing up plans to build or finance the purchase of that bazooka?

an "enemy combatant", hmmm... who is that? Like the people that donated to a food aid program that Hezbollah was helping with for contributing material aid to terrorism? Like that kid in Chicago that got put on ice for several years on suspicion of building a dirty bomb and was finally cut loose because the gvmt didn't have any evidence?

A phrase people are missing here is an American on American soil engaged in combat.

What happens when some petty bureaucrat decides you are a terrorist or enemy combatant?

You are stripped of your American citizenship!
You are stripped of your civil rights!

Bring on the drones!

Remember that in the legal system, the word "rape" is different than what we think it means. It means "unwanted touching", and it need not be in a "private" area. Holder is just using weasle words and blowing smoke up our asses!


That unfortunately remains to be seen. However, there is also historical evidence and Holder's own previous comments that this is the purview of domestic law enforcement. The specific scenarios Holder has highlighted for potential use of lethal military force (9/11 and Pearl Harbor) were both acts of active, immediate combat operations.


The previous comments combined with this letter lead me to believe that had al-Awlaki been in the United States he would have been apprehended, not droned. At least that is the policy being clarified and expressed.

"apprehended" like Dorner, and Bonnie and Clyde and WACO and Ruby Ridge, and NOW...


The Administration has already stated that they don't use drones unless apprehension is not feasible. You would think that apprehension is always feasible in the US if there is no imminent threat which would leave Rand's question moot.

They used a spy sat against WACO, and a drone against Dorner.


I guess what I was trying to ask is that what if apprehension of Al-Awlaki was not feasible in the US? Would the President still have the legal authority to kill him if he didn't pose an imminent threat (in the Rand Paul sense where he's holding a grenade launcher)?

Drone pilot guide to grenade launcher recognition:

http://c4228740.r40.cf2.rackcdn.com/bubble-gun1.jpg
http://localtvwnep.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/capture6.jpeg?w=415
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2010/06/nerf-gun-modding/nerf-recon.jpg
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/nerf%20gun.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gYl1HGDY018/Tdpj2jqeNGI/AAAAAAAAAA0/WgfmOdlGKF8/s1600/nerf-n-strike-vulcan.jpg
http://nerftaskforce.webs.com/nerf-n-strike-raider-cs3.jpg
http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.thehollywoodgossip.com/assets.thehollywoodgossip.com/attachments/xlarge_l/xpop-tart-gun.jpg.pagespeed.ic.FguIcCOssJ.jpg
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1241149.1358366920!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/article-fingers-0116.jpg
http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/rCzr7S_Bwvo/mqdefault.jpg


I took a shit in this guys toilet then made his house my battalion HQ

Did it get clogged or do they source their toilets from some country other then 'Merica?

-t

Lucille
03-07-2013, 03:59 PM
Holder's Worrisome Assurances About the President's Power to Kill Suspected Terrorists
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/holders-worrisome-assurances-about-the-p


How hard would it be for the White House to say, in response to Rand Paul's probing and important questions about the president's license to kill, that the government does not have the authority to use lethal force against a suspected terrorist within the United States—regardless of his nationality—unless doing so is necessary to prevent him from killing innocent people? It would be quite easy, compared to the absurd evasions and red herrings the White House has offered so far. Hence the suspicion that President Obama wants to leave open the possibility of ordering a domestic hit if he thinks it's "appropriate," as Attorney General Eric Holder might put it. The administration's assurances so far leave some pretty big loopholes.
[...]
In his two-sentence letter to Paul today, Holder writes: "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." Earlier today Brian Doherty noted (http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/did-rand-paul-win-white-house-says-no-au) that "engaged in combat" is ambiguous, especially because the Obama administration argues that the people it identifies as members or allies of Al Qaeda are engaged in combat even when they are driving down the street or sitting in their homes, far from any active battlefield. The question Holder chose to answer also is restricted to U.S. citizens on American soil, leaving open the possibility that immunity from summary execution in this country hinges on nationality, and to targeted killings using "weaponized drones," leaving open the possibility that other methods could be used.

Parsing Holder's statements this way may seem far-fetched, but he should not be allowed any wiggle room, given the way the administration has twisted language to justify what looks like assassination as an act of self-defense. In its white paper on targeted killings, for instance, the Justice Department redefines "imminent threat" so that it means no more than an asserted association with Al Qaeda or an allied group. As Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) noted at yesterday's hearing "the white paper goes so far as to suggest that imminence doesn't really need to involve anything imminent," since its definition "does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future."

JJ2
03-07-2013, 04:29 PM
http://www.unitedliberty.org/files/images/rand-paul-won.png

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/12934-eric-holder-to-rand-paul-no-the-president-cant-kill-americans-on-american-soil

How about just shooting them? Does he think he has that authority?

I wonder if the reason for only saying "authority" and leaving out any mention of the Constitution is because they are simply waiting for Congress to pass a drone bill giving them "authority" (perhaps an NDAA-style bill).

satchelmcqueen
03-07-2013, 05:52 PM
i think the letter leaves a lot of wiggle room. either way at least rand is getting some form of response.