Rand Paul began filibustering the Brennan nomination about 4 hours ago. Mike Lee has now joined him.
Paul vows to continue the filibuster until Obama declares drone strikes on American citizens on American soil as unconstitutional and that he has no authority to make any such decision:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has launched a talking filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
“I’m here to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination to be director of CIA,” Paul said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “I will speak for as long as it takes.
“I will speak today until the president says, ‘no’ he will not kill you at a café.”
Paul has said he wants more answers from the administration on whether American citizens can be targeted by armed drones inside the United States before he’ll lift his filibuster on Brennan’s nomination. …
“Has America the beautiful become ‘Alice in Wonderland’?” Paul said. “When I asked the president can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer — an unequivocal no.
“But his answer was, ‘I haven’t killed anyone yet and I have no intention of killing Americans, but I might.’”Paul said the possibility that a citizen could be targeted without being charged in the courts went against the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which gives citizens the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.
“The Fifth Amendment should also protect you from a president who might kill you with a drone,” Paul said. “No American should be killed in their house without a warrant. … But [Obama] says trust him, he hasn’t done it yet.
“Mr. President that’s not good enough. … I will not sit quietly in my office and let him shred the Constitution.”
He spoke about the Posse Comitatus Act, how Obama and pals are barred from using the military on American soil unless an insurrection or war is declared.
The point, Paul says, is that military and police power are separated from judicial power for a reason, and the reason is due process. Without that separation, the executive will be transformed into a tyrannical power, regardless of whether the executive chooses to exercise that power or not. The answer from Eric Holder that “we probably won’t exercise that power” doesn’t address the issue.
…Paul just asked whether this power would have been so acceptable to Democrats 40 years ago. What if, Paul wondered, someone had dropped a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda or college students at the time who were raising money for the Viet Cong? Would the same Democrats who are sitting on the sidelines now have protested such tactics at the time? After all, raising money for the enemy is arguably treason, and Paul said he’d have called it that — but those students would have deserved to get their day in court.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/zBpYkzYL-TM[/youtube]
Great points….BUT where was he during the Hagel nomination? A nominee just as dangerous as Brennan.
Lots of cheers for Rand Paul blocking Brennan. But RP explained vote 4 Hagel by saying O has “prerogative” on apptees twitchy.com/2013/02/26/sen…
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 6, 2013
I like Rand Paul. I just don’t get how you square the circle. twitchy.com/2013/02/26/sen…
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 6, 2013
He should of done this during Hagel as well….but he didn’t. So letting a dangerous clown like Hagel slide is ok but when Paul wants to talk about drones than he is going to fight?
Come on….
Given all that I still support what he is doing but as Malkin said, I just don’t get how you square the circle.
UPDATE
Via Ed Morrissey:
Ted Cruz has just joined in to ask questions of Paul, in what looks like a pretty smart strategy. Paul has specifically stated that he will take questions without relinquishing control of the floor, and both Cruz and Lee are asking oddly lengthy questions. In other words, they’re providing Paul with short opportunities to rest his voice, and to add more ammunition to his rhetorical magazine. Puns very much intended, by the way.
UPDATE
Democrat joins in
Heading to the floor to speak on Congressional oversight of executive branch & rules for targeted killings. Watch: c-span.org/Live-Video/C-S…
— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) March 6, 2013
UPDATE
Just when you thought the #filiblizzard couldn’t get any better:
Rubio…joins in. And he starts with a water joke.—
DrewM (@DrewMTips) March 06, 2013Heh… @marcorubio tells Rand Paul to have water nearby. LoLoL—
Bryan Tupper (@BryTupper) March 06, 2013Rubio: “Let me give you some free advice. Keep some water nearby.”—
Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) March 06, 2013
Anyone notice this filibuster is turning into a preview of the GOP Presidential Debate 2016?
UPDATE
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to drop his filibuster so that the Senate could proceed with votes this evening, but Paul declined to do so.
“I have no problem with people talking a long time,” Reid said, before asking if Paul and two other senators would limit themselves to speaking for 30 minutes more each.
Reid asked for unanimous consent, but Paul objected. “The only thing I would like is a clarification,” Paul said, proposing that Holder retract his claim that “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.”
Paul noted that Holder seemed to contradict that statement during testimony this morning; he said he would end the filibuster immediately if Holder put his apparent retraction into a “coherent letter.”
Reid decided to continue with Senate business tomorrow rather than fight for time today.
And then he tried to take his ball and go home:
Reid walked away. Still needs deal w Paul 2 wrap up #Senate + set #Brennan cloture vote Thurs.#CIA #GOP #Democrat
— Alan Ota (@Alankota) March 6, 2013
See author page
Sen. Saxby Chambliss also joined in.
This is amazing.
Sen. Reid just came in and wants to know if we are going to finish tonight.
Heh.
I seem to remember writing in commentary, that if Obama can kill Americans overseas without any type of due process, other than his personal discretion, it would only be a slight escalation before he figured he could do the same thing in America. I was called on this for making such a ridiculous assumption, since it is expressly forbidden in the Constitution, but now Obama doesn’t rule out the possibility and some concerned Senators are concerned over Obama’s implications.
I think this is an integral struggle to save the country and our Constitution or slide down the path of Chavez and Stalin’s autocratic totalitarianism. If you say, I am making a big supposition, many of our readers thought making the supposition of assassinating Americans with drones was ludicrous and silly; however, our most prominent young Conservative leaders are no longer trusting Obama’s good intentions. The slippery slope is a down hill grade and objects gain speed and momentum, unless they are stopped.
if it would have been GEORGE BUSH PRESIDENT,
THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TAKEN HIM ON HIS WORD ALONE,
BUT KNOWING THE EXPLOSIVE TANTRUM PERSONALITY OF OBAMA,
WHEN HE GET ANGRY SO SUDDENLY WITHOUT ANY WARNING
WHAT SO EVER,
NO ONE TRUST HIM TO HOLD HIS HORSES, IF HE GET INTO THOSE FITS,
AND START TO FLY THE DRONES ALONE ON HIS OWN ON THE PATIO
IN THE BACK OF THE WHITE HOUSE ONE NIGHT OF A FULL MOON, WHEN HE FEELS FOR HAVING
HIS REVENGE FOR HAVING BEEN REFUSE MONEY TO SPEND,
ONE DRONE ON EACH FOUR SIDE OF THE AMERICA SURE TO HIT SOME HUMANS,
AND FREAKE UP THE OTHER, WOULD MAKE HIM CALM DOWN, HAPPY TO HAVE CAUSE ” PAIN” HE IS SEEKING TO.
Hey, Obama, to quote your favorite people the OWSers,
THIS IS WHAT
DEMOCRACYA REPUBLIC LOOKS LIKE.Nan G
HI
I was wondering what a filibuster
last time I heard the word,
now I understand,
BYE
His point of upholding Brennan’s nomination is only to get the attention of the President, DOJ, the media and American citizens.
He is using this as a tool to stand up for the Constitution, not to block Brennan’s nomination. As has been said, elections have consequences. I applaud Sen. Paul for doing this and while I could never vote for a person such as Brennan or Hagel, I only hope this gets Obama’s attention. He thinks that he is a dictator in everything but name, and hopefully this will take him down a peg or two.
@Skookum:
My friend, it is not about left or right…(I’m not saying your comment was left or right) it is about Constitutional or Unconstitutional. This president has gone so far as to say that he has the power kill anyone that he feels needs to be killed. Unfortunately this is how I have seen things going. This whole story relates back to my arguments against some Republican issues, that water boarding is not torture, for one.
My point then as now is that our founding fathers believed that ALL men were created with GOD given rights. And that even though our government was established to protect those rights that doesn’t mean that those not born here don’t have those same GOD granted RIGHTS. Therefore our government has an obligation to honor those rights in others.
Our government has no regard for the lives of so many innocents in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and so many other nations. How do you expect them to care about something so trivial as violating the 4th amendment rights of its’ citizens?
Is Rand Paul truly incapable of imagining any circumstances under which a drone strike on American soil might not be a rational option?
What Holder said, in response to a direct question about it, was that such unlikely circumstances are conceivable, and that such a response could not be totally ruled out. We live in a dangerous world. That was a rational and totally honest answer.
Should we start spinning out improbable but possible terrorist scenarios, for those who are apparently totally devoid of imagination?
@Greg: You said:
The only one incapable of understanding things is you, Greggie.
Sen. Paul covered this when he made remarks that if we were under attack; if, for example, an American citizen picked up a rocket launcher and started shooting down airliners, then that citizen would have forfeited their rights to due process.
Duh.
Stop giving Holder and Obama cover for their unconstitutional power grab.
Should we start spinning out improbable but possible scenarios, where due process and the Constitution can be ignored for the imposition of tyranny.
There is a growing percentage of the population that no longer “trusts” the executive, especially after repeated inferences to the Constitution being a hindrance to Obama and his theory of governance. Ignoring due process and giving Obama the exclusive and unique right to kill whomever he feels needs killing is antithetical to the Constitution and the freedom of an American.
As far as scenarios, criminals in the commission of violent crimes face the possibility of death by cop bullets, without due process, but someone with political views that contradict Obama’s is not an immediate threat, but with Obama’s sense of overreach, how do we know he is just practicing expediency. he office of the presidency was never expected to function as a quasi office of assassination.
Oh, but to remember those heady days of Liberal indignation and executive overreach, when Bush was suspected of spying on Liberal Library cards. Now, there was something to be worried about, forget the possibility of assassinating political enemies, that is totally inconsequential.
The thought that Obama—or any American president—would utilize domestic drone strikes to deal with political enemies is so far off the charts that I can’t even give it serious consideration.
I can easily imagine terrorists inside the United States suddenly in a position to inflict mass casualties—in which case I would expect any American president to neutralize them as quickly as possible, by any means available.
I don’t consider it responsible to try to force a drone strike to be lined off the list of available options ahead of time.
There are many Americans who would have said the thought of the president assassinating Americans with drone strikes is inconceivable, until it was over. There are Americans who would have said it is inconceivable of the president starting a war to eliminate a dubious political ally, who happens to be the leader of a country, and then allowing an element of our enemy for the last twelve years to impose their rule in that country. Yes, inconceivable can be a relative term, but if we all trust in Obama Logic, there would be no need not to give him complete power in all things. Why force him to subscribe to a Constitution he feels is flawed. He knows what is best for the country.
Hmm,
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Greg you’re honestly willing to condone the Government to kill hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of its own citizens with any and all means possible to remove just a few people who might pose a threat to the Government?
You’re a sick and mentally ill man. What happens if you ended up on the Drone strike List? What then? Would you suddenly realize that maybe you shouldn’t back this policy?
@Mr. Irons, #13:
What I said should be fairly easy to understand. You don’t seem to want to get it.
If it were suddenly discovered that terrorists at some remote airstrip were completing preparations to dust a U.S. metropolitan area with anthrax spores, I’d want the president to have every option at his disposal to stop it. That includes a drone strike, if that for some reason were deemed to have the greatest chance of success.
Rand Paul wants to remove that option ahead of time. Does he have a frickin’ crystal ball? Has it informed him that no American president will ever have a legitimate need to use a drone to deal with some unforeseen threat inside the nation’s borders? If the aerosol anthrax psychos are loading their helicopter’s crop dusting tanks, I want something to happen quickly. If there’s a circling attack capable drone, I want the president to be able to authorize a damn missile. Then we can all watch the investigation afterward, and decide if it was called for.
This makes me mentally ill? I’m more paranoid for imagining possible terrorist scenarios like the one above than Rand Paul is for imagining Obama is going to use drones against his political enemies? To me, that seems just plain crazy.
What Rand Paul is doing is irresponsible. It’s just more political posturing, but of a sort that could have real negative consequences for the safety of the nation.
@Greg: You are either monumentally stupid or monumentally ideological. Either way, you continue to state that Rand Paul wants to take away a method of dealing with active terrorists engaged in combat against the United States and that is a flat out lie, sir.
So, to your insistence that Sen. Paul wishes to remove options the President might have to combat terrorism in the event of an attack on our soil. From his first hour of his filibuster –
Is that clear enough for you, Greggie?
You said, “The thought that Obama—or any American president—would utilize domestic drone strikes to deal with political enemies is so far off the charts that I can’t even give it serious consideration. ”
Okay, lets go with that.
Rand Paul asked the President point blank, “Can you kill an American, on American soil?” Obama, who by all rights and even according to you Greg, when you said it was “so far off the charts” so as to not get serious consideration, ought to have been easily able to answer with a resounding, immediate and concise, “No!”, instead offered, “I haven’t killed anyone yet,” and goes on to say that he has no intention of killing Americans, but he might.
That’s good enough for you, Greggie?
If it’s such a no brainer, why can’t Obama just say so? Why can’t Holder?
Exactly what are the limits to your repeated attempts to give this man a pass? What would he have to do before you would utter ONE word of criticism at him? How many times must he defy the Constitution before you are willing to hold him accountable for his words and deeds?
In other words, just how far up his ass are you willing to stick your nose?
@Greg: You said:
Why do you consider standing up for our Constitutional rights to due process, political posturing?
Update:
Here’s the deal. The United States, or rather the obama administration determines that you an American citizen are a ‘bad’ guy. You are at the time sitting in an outdoor café enjoying a cup of coffee. Obama has decided that you are an imminent threat to the United States and launches a drone attack. Not only you will be killed but all of the people sitting around you, and don’t forget the countless number of people who will be wounded. The definition of imminent means that something is forthcoming, pending, just around the corner. It does not mean it is happening at that very second. So obama and his band of merry communist czars have determined that you may do something bad in the near future, so you must be assassinated now. For example, they might have found that you have a friend, family member etc in a country that doesn’t really care for the US. However because of this friendship regardless if you have ever met eyes on one another, you are considered to be a threat against America. Of course those who are REAL terrorists get a bye on this one; we are only talking about American citizens. How they make this determination is not well known because you sure well k now they have decided that most radical muslim terrorists are really not terrorists, but misguided muslims or engage in workplace violence (another story for another thread).
IF the danger is set forth such as during Pearl Harbor and September 11th that is a game changer. Leadership needs to do what is necessary to protect the citizenry of the United States. During September 11th then President Bush stated that any plane that looked like it would be going toward the Capital, WH, etc. it was to be shot down. If the people on flight 93 had not sacrificed their lives to take down the plane, it would have been shot down. I am sure that was a gut wrenching decision, however sometimes during war it must be done. However, you sitting down enjoying a cup of coffee is NOT war.
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
IF obama and his cronies shoot you down where you stand, you have not been afforded your rights.
What obama wants to do to American citizen is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
In addition there is the The Posse Comitatus Act .(United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152). It states, “…it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress…:” This means the United States Army cannot shoot you down where you sit in the United States.
This in my opinion is just another step toward total control over the people of the United States. This man will leave the WH kicking and screaming and based on his actions I wouldn’t be surprised if he signs an executive order that he can remain as long as he wants. Something must be done before it is too late.
@Greg:
Rand Paul’s request is that President Obama issue a statement saying that there will be no drone strikes or other lethal force against a US citizen on US soil that does not pose an imminent threat.
That’s pretty cut and dry.
Obama and Holder stated that foreign terrorists had the right to be arrested on the battlefield, Mirandized, and to stand trial in the U.S.; presumably, they were to have the same rights as an American citizen and terrorism becomes a criminal issue. However, a U.S. citizen, by the logic of Obama can be assassinated, under the order of this president for being suspected of terrorist activities, no Miranda, no indictment, no trial, no judge, no jury, nothing but the assumption of this president that there was justifiable cause.
Is there a worse threat of tyranny to the public or a more flagrant proclamation of power by a leader, than to say he has the right to assassinate Americans based on his personal judgement. This comes from an administration that has a profound denial of guilt or responsibility when problems arise, like the freeing of two thousand illegal aliens or the loss of an ambassador and three other Americans.
Living under this assumption of life and death for citizens by this president is a means of control and intimidation. Leaders who seek omnipotence want these rights of assassination, but can you imagine the outrage by Obama, if Bush would have claimed the right to assassinate Americans in America.
Aqua
very informatic comment of you’res, thank you,
you know the thought came that OBAMA HAS A BIG PART IN
RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADING FROM BEHIND, IN THE BENGHASI HORRIBLE MASSACRE,
IF WE LOOK AT the time it happened, there was a multiple mob march
on many front many part of those MUSLIM COUNTRIES,
ONE BURNED THE OBAMA IMAGE, AND THE FLAG, PREVIOUSLY THERE HAD BEEN A DRONE KILLING
AN AMERICAN SON OF A TERRORIST ALSO KILLED, THAT WAS VERY CLOSE TO THE MOB EVENT TOO.
I THINK THEY WHERE ALL COORDINATED TO GET TOGETHER AS A SHOW OF FORCE BY THE ALQAEDA
AND THE KILLING OF THE AMBASSADOR IS INCLUDED IN IT,
THE 3 OTHER SEALS INCLUDED WHERE TOLD TO STAY DOWN WHEN THEY ASK TO GO TO HELP
FROM ANOTHER PLACE THEY WHERE, BUT THEY WENT ANYWAY,
THEY BY BEING THERE SCREWED UP SOME NOT SUPPOSE TO BECOME PUBLIC “FIX” BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE AMBASSADOR DOING WHAT WAS ASK OF HIM BY THE WHITE HOUSE DIRECTLY, BUT STAYING CLEAN BEHIND SECRETLY, DELEGATING LIKE A NERO MODERN TIME, THE PROOF AND CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS TO THE AMBASSADOR WHO MAYBE SENSE THERE WAS A RAT EATING HIS FOOD BUT COULD NOT AS AMERICAN THINK IN HIS WILDEST DREAM THAT HE WAS FRAME BY THE LEADER
HE OBEYED COMMANDS, SO HE WAS AGRESS BEATEN AND KILL FOR REVENGE ON THE ALQAEDA KILLED BY DRONE,
I THINK THEY LET BELIEVE THA THE AMBASSADOR WAS THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE KILLING AND NOT OBAMA, BUT THEY KNEW OBAMA WAS ON TOP, BUT THEY ONLY HAD ACCESS TO THE AMBASSADOR REPRESENTING HIM, EVEN THEY LET OBAMA KNOW THEY KNEW HE WAS IN THE FIX
BY BURNING HIS FACE IMAGE, WHICH WAS A DIRECT MESSAGE FROM ALQAEDA,
WHICH GAVE US THE AFTERMAT OBAMA STUNT, UNABLE TO REACT SO BROKEN DOWN HE WAS.
HE ALONE KNEW DAM WELL SOMETHING WE DID NOT KNOW BUT ALL CAN SMELL THE STINK OF IT,
SPECIALY WHEN HILARY SAID; WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE.
TELLING DON’T CONTINUE TO PROBE ON IT,
BYE
@Greg:
It seems to me that in that case, a drone strike would be the worst thing possible. I may be wrong, but I think a hellfire missile would simply spread the anthrax spores into the air covering a larger area.
You miss the point; the federal government does NOT have the right to kill an American citizen on American soil, without imminent threat being present. Look up the word imminent, Greggie. In my dictionary, it says “immediate.” Not somewhere in the future. And even the DoJ’s own white paper, magically leaked to the press, convolutes the term “imminent.”
So what happens if the President decides, on his own, that the people listed as “dangerous” or “far right wing” by the SLPC should be taken out, all in the name of national security? It has already been leaked that Obama has a “kill” list. Do you really want the co-equal branch of our government, the Executive, to have that power? Do you really want the government to drop a hellfire missile on your head without due process? And what about those who would be innocent of any wrong doing? Are they just going to be considered collateral damage? “Yeah, we killed 60 other people, but we got the bad guy.” Somehow, that just doesn’t work for me.
The left went absolutely apoplectic over wire taps during Bush’s presidency. Even though it was later proved that he had sought FISA court approval. Remember how your side screamed about waterboarding, the same process every one of our SEALs endure during training? Yet now, you have no problem with drone strikes on American citizens on American soil without the guaranteed right of due process.
People like you are not the solution, you’re the problem.
I think the drone killing Americans is important because Anwar al-Awlaki was interviewed four times after 9-11-01 and found to be not involved.
Anwar al-Awlaki was then invited to dine at the Pentagon as part of its Islamic-outreach efforts, and in 2002 he was even conducting prayers in the U.S. Capitol.
Obama, in the meantime, spoke at a dinner in Los Angeles to Muslims.
His speech was recorded by the Los Angeles Times.
But the LATimes has NEVER released the recording.
We DO know (from other sources) that Obama expressed hatred for Israel and a patience to work against it after getting high office.
What ties and/or similarities do the two men have?
Obama suddenly wanted Anwar al-Awlaki dead.
Not captured.
Dead.
Dead men tell no tales.
Nan G
IT’S A WOW
@Greg:
Yet it was your side of the aisle that claimed Bush either allowed 9/11 to happen or that he actually blew up the WTC and launched missiles into the Pentagon.
@anticsrocks: Nothing like the facts to set matters straight.
20 years ago, it would have been outrageous to believe that the US federal government would ever engage in police action combat using military weapons against our own citizens.
12 years ago it would have been outrageous to believe that the US federal government would be engaging in warrantless searches on any citizen simply wishing to travel by a mass transit system.
5 years ago it would have been outrageous to believe that the US federal government would be assassinating US citizens, at the direction of the WH, on foreign soil.
Today, it seems outrageous to believe that the US federal government would ever engage in assassinating US citizens, at the direction of the WH, on American soil.
What will seem outrageous to believe tomorrow, that will actually happen in the near future?
People want to defend Obama and Holder on their statements on these drone strikes, and insist that they are both rational and trustworthy. The problem is, the Obama admin has repeatedly said things that turned out to be false or mistaken. Obamacare, with all of it’s promises made by the WH, comes to mind. The Benghazi incident comes to mind.
But it goes beyond what anyone actually thinks or believes about Obama himself, or his WH admin.
It goes to the core of what this country is, and has, been about since it’s founding. In King George’s day, the local government representative could have you remanded to custody, or shot and killed on the spot, for simply allowing your horse to kick up mud on his uniform. Those who spoke out against the King, or the King’s local governors, faced execution by firing squad, or hanging from a tree.
Our founders formed a government based on the rule of law. All men were free in their possessions, persons and property. All men could speak freely about their government, and petition it as necessary for redress. We were truly a free people.
In the two hundred and twenty-five years since the ratification of our Constitution, we have seen horrific and egregious violations against the Constitution against our own citizens, and it seems that what was once reviled, is now considered. And what is now considered, is then acted upon.
Concerning drone strikes against US citizens, on US soil, the idea is repulsive to it’s core. And it should be, as well, to anyone who truly believes in freedom and liberty. I wouldn’t want a conservative or libertarian to have this power, so why should I allow someone whose political ideology is vastly different to have it?
@Nan G:
For the first part of his administration, Obama had a “capture or kill” policy when it came to suspected terrorists. Somewhere along the line, that changed. Remember, the Obama administration wanted to give KSM “due process” on American soil.
Now we know that drone strikes have killed innocent people, like Al Awalaki’s 16 year old son. I can’t say that the junior Al Awalaki was not radicalized, but there has never been any evidence of that shown.
Rand Paul is also saying that in such an important decision, like who to go after with a drone strike, the Congress should be consulted on who these people are and what the evidence is against them.
To say that our government will never use force against American citizens is to ignore Ruby Ridge (under a Republican) and Waco (under a Democrat). There was never any justification for the actions of our government against Randy Weaver and his family, or against the Branch Davidians in Waco. Both cases were government power gone horribly wrong.
A tempest in a teapot fueled by ODS. Re read Holder’s statement and listen to his statements before Congress.He leaves open the extremely rare possibility of drone usage against unforseen sits. like 9/11 or other terrorist attacks. “Drone strikes against political adversaries” Pure B.S.The rabid right’s feigned concern for terrorists be they Iranian or American is laughable.
@Richard Wheeler:
You miss the target by a mile, Rich. We aren’t talking about a case of using extreme lethal force against non-citizens attacking us on US soil. We, along with Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, etc., are talking about the use of that same force, against US citizens, on US soil.
Holder dissembled mightily in his answers to the questions posed to him, without really answering the actual questions themselves, or the topic at the top of the list.
I’d suggest that you read Holder’s answer(s) again, and then tell us how the “extremely rare possibility of drone usage against unforseen sits. like 9/11 or other terrorist attack” actually squares against the question of using drones against US citizens on US soil.
Hint: It doesn’t.
Richard Wheeler
it’s because nobody believe their words any more,
and once it reach that level, the door is shut,
no matter how much they try to restore the credibility,
this is one thing they should have known with AMERICANS,
THEY DON’T FORGIVE ANYONE SCREWING THEM, AS TOLERANT AS THEY ARE,
YOU CAN TRY TO HUMILIATE THEM, THEY WILL LET YOU COME UNTIL YOU LIE TO THEM,
THEN YOU’RE OUT FOR GOOD,
J.G. I ‘ve got no problem with killing terrorists even if they happen to be American citizens on American soil. Maybe that’s just me.
BTW Sits. like Ruby Ridge and Waco must be looked at individually.I believe the nut case in Waco brought the disaster on himself–very unfortunate that innocents died.
Coulda saved some lives and taxpayer money with a drone to the head of Tim McVeigh
@Richard Wheeler:
So why didn’t we just stand KSM up against a wall and shoot him? Is there any doubt that he was a terrorist? Instead, this Administration’s DoJ wanted to try KSM in a U.S. court. Why the change in policy?
How so? Was David Koresh firing on state/federal buildings trying to kill Americans? No. And when the feds claimed that he was illegally dealing in firearms, why didn’t they pick him up when he was shopping in Waco or jogging down a country road? You really approve of the use of tanks to destroy buildings where children are?
Both Ruby Ridge and Waco were extreme overreaches of the federal government (odd that the same agencies were involved in both events). If you have no right to be safe in your own home, then you have no rights. Period.
@Richard Wheeler:
So just land a hellfire missile on someone’s head that is suspected, not convicted, of committing a henious crime because it saves money?
Amazing.
@Nan G:
That’s interesting, Nan. I read your link, and I don’t see the word “hate” there at all, so one must assume you really do have “other sources” that evidence this rather shocking claim. Accusations of hatred against Israel, wanting to destroy Israel, AND murder to top it off. Wow. Why are you sitting on this? You claim to “know”something that would have easily prevented an Obama win last November, but apparently all of Obama’s enemies, in government and without, with security clearances and without, don’t have access to the sources you have. Enough with the hints, with the hypotheticals, where is the proof?
So, the military cannot conduct operations in country without a declaration of an insurrection or a foreign invasion… but the DHS has bought 2700 IED-resistant armored vehicles and a billion rounds of ammunition. Add to that Obama wanting to Hellfire anyone he deems is disagreeable.
Something ain’t smellin’ just right here.
@Richard Wheeler: Your understudy, Greggie is the person who dreamed up the “political enemies” idea. It wasn’t “ODS,” and it wasn’t proposed by anyone on the right.
You might want to read the posts a bit more carefully next time, before you start leveling accusations and assigning blame in your haste to give Obama a pass on his every action.
Reto5 Like I said, a well placed drone on Tim McVeigh’s ass, eliminating him with admittedly EXTREME PREJUDICE and saving 168 innocent lives, would have been fine with me.
Anticsrocks Thanks for the heads up. How you been?
Nan Proof PLS re yr claim that Obama’s speech proclaimed his “hatred” for Israel.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
Without due process? By a simple command decision from the WH? Or, even if they get Congressional approval, by a split vote in Congress?
Where do you draw the line? When is enough, well, enough?
I don’t believe that you are thinking this through completely, or clearly enough, Rich. Who determines when someone becomes a terrorist? The President? Congress? An accusation from someone in the media? Some non-profit government consulting group?
The 5th Amendment of our Constitution guarantees that no person shall be held for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment by a Grand Jury. Is the President alone, or his admin, or Congress, considered a Grand Jury?
The 5th, along with the 14th Amendment, guarantees due process for all US citizens. The legal definition of due process is, “A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property.”
That is a Constitutional right, Rich. And considering what has been suggested by Holder, Obama, and his admin, that a person only needs to be shown as an imminent threat, before ANY crime is actually committed, just the simple targeting of US citizens on foreign soil is problematic as being Constitutional. Place that same person on US soil, and it’s not just problematic, but a complete breach of that person’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
And we haven’t even touched on subsequent laws, such as the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the use of military action on US soil without approval from Congress, or in specifically directed actions in accordance with the Constitution.
@Richard Wheeler:
Oh, there is no doubt that it could have saved the lives of the people killed in the bombing. Or the money used in the aftermath, from cleanup of the building, the building of the memorial, the trial, the housing, the actual execution, etc.
And there is no doubt that the act itself was worthy of execution, considering all of the innocent lives lost.
But, was McVeigh guilty of a capital crime prior to the act itself? Are we to forego even a trial, for the simple act of a thought crime? What about someone we know is planning to commit a simple act of murder? Should we forego their Constitutional rights to due process as well, and just execute them on the spot?
@johngalt: Do not forget Ruby Ridge and Waco
@Richard Wheeler: They would have used drones on the Weaver family and killed them all — ditto Waco
@retire05: Why they can just make things up re The Branch Davidians and “child abuse” or set up a sting re Randy Weaver and a sawed off shotgun — hell anyone can cut down a barrel of a shotgun.
Let the SOB’s in DC have anymore carte blanch than they have now and they’ll have a drone strike on anyone whose neighbor reports that he spanked his kid or cussed somone out.
@retire05: Would that be with or without the “middle eastern” looking fellow McVeigh was photo’d with on security cameras on more than one occaision? hmmm?
Have to add this — not sure if there is a previous mention in this thread or another blog topic —
True to character and providing NO surprise the RINO Bobsie Twins McLame and Grahmnestie after dining with “da wun” last night came to the floor of the Senate and criticized Rand Paul for his actions.
McLame – A$$HOLE of the first order — remember that SOB whining about torture and waterboarding during Bush’s term and now siding with the bolsheviks on domestic drone strikes —
eventually the dictionary (at least an Urban one) will have the term ‘dickhead’ with McLame’s mug shot next to it.
Any more mystery as to why he lost 2008 — it did not have anything to do with Sarah Palin. In fact she lost a LOT of political capital when she endorsed the rat for re-elction in 2010.
How ironic, Obama’s former neighbor the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife would be deemed eligible for assassination under Obama’s enlightened views, not to forget the Black Panthers as well during their more lawless days in the 60’s & 70’s. I wonder how these former Obama associates feel about assassination compared to normal judicial proceedings.
@Budvarakbar: You don’t know that.I’ve got no sympathy for the Waco Wacko.
Re 44 Tim was as All-American looking as they come. Any alligator tears for that murderer?
Btw I mentioned the tax savings derived from an early demise specifically to cheer my Repub. friends.lol
Skooks #46 Wouldn’t you say that’s a good thing?
Anticsrocks How am I doing “stirring things up” stick around.
The Legal Eagle comes up with a answer:
Ever fast on his feet, our AG Holder, reported to be a legal genius came up with this response a bit late after fumbling over answers in front of Cruz. Better late than never, but the damage is done, both for Obama’s Progressives and his RINOs.
@johngalt: It seems the only time the left supports the 14th Amendment is when it applies to abortion rights just like the only time they support the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech is when it involves media outlets that support their agenda. Other than that, they want it regulated with the likes of the Fairness Doctrine or “Hate Crimes” etc. What they fail to realize is that if the Constitution is weakened for the likes of a left wing POTUS like we have now, it will also be primed for the picking by a Richard Nixon type.
@another vet: “Primed for a Richard Nixon type” GOD HELP US
Skooks Can Rand get his beauty rest now—Hell he’s already too damn pretty.