Rand Paul filibuster of Brennan nomination

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

A drone strike is hardly something with the moment's decision and imminent danger exigencies of a police shooting, and Holder or Brennan or Obama should be willing to make an unqualified statement that it should require *at least* as rigorous procedural safeguards as FISA provides (a bar so low one can step over it as it is). Hell, the clean police shooting has more well-heeled constitutional bona fides than does the proposed drone strike within our borders against our own citizens.

In a potential terrorist situation of a large magnitude, say against a military installation etc...there could be a point where a drone would be a good or necessary weapon to take out the offender(s) so as to save others lives. And if joe schmo police officer can kill someone in defense of self and others, why wouldn't a president be able to?

But short of such an extreme circumstance is where we really run into problems, not least of which is this wanting of drones for surveillance and other purposes that violate privacy and due process.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

In a potential terrorist situation of a large magnitude, say against a military installation etc...there could be a point where a drone would be a good or necessary weapon to take out the offender(s) so as to save others lives. And if joe schmo police officer can kill someone in defense of self and others, why wouldn't a president be able to?

But short of such an extreme circumstance is where we really run into problems, not least of which is this wanting of drones for surveillance and other purposes that violate privacy and due process.

I don't think Rand is against using force in such a scenario. It's more about killing someone who is not posing an imminent danger.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

I don't think Rand is against using force in such a scenario. It's more about killing someone who is not posing an imminent danger.

In that regard, I agree with Rand completely.

I think the reaction to Holder's letter has been overblown though. He could have written to a much clearer line and I recognize that the gov-speak that drives people batty, but it's not nearly as weasely as some make it out to be.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Tim85

And what of it exactly?

I shudder at the mind that can't make the obvious differentiation between patrolling an international border for illegal violations of our sovereign space with drones (and the quote makes no mention of armed, combat drones), and using drones for warrantless, no-probable-cause-determination summary execution of American citizens inside the US by drones.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

In a potential terrorist situation of a large magnitude, say against a military installation etc...there could be a point where a drone would be a good or necessary weapon to take out the offender(s) so as to save others lives. And if joe schmo police officer can kill someone in defense of self and others, why wouldn't a president be able to?

But short of such an extreme circumstance is where we really run into problems, not least of which is this wanting of drones for surveillance and other purposes that violate privacy and due process.

I reject out of hand that the intelligence necessary to make that determination would be insufficient to satisfy a judge whose entire job is to be available for exactly that sort of real time determination. Law enforcement have real time interface in warrant approval all the time.

I also marginally reject the notion that it is possible to derive such actionable intelligence, have a target so dialed in as to realize hoe imminent the threat is... and somehow no federal law enforcement has in the lead up to that moment gotten to where they might be able to act directly? As crappy as Detroit is, it isn't Fallujah in 2005 where there may simply be no way to get to a target on the ground.

[FlyingGatorII]

Wow..big news on this while Megan Kelly was interviewing Rand just now she read a letter from Holder that says Prez does not have right to attack American with drones on American soil while not engaged in combat. Hooray! Why was that so hard?

[MastaG8r]

After watching a good amount of that performance last night I am leaning toward concluding that Rand Paul has four things: Heart, brains, balls...and my vote.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I reject out of hand that the intelligence necessary to make that determination would be insufficient to satisfy a judge whose entire job is to be available for exactly that sort of real time determination. Law enforcement have real time interface in warrant approval all the time.

I also marginally reject the notion that it is possible to derive such actionable intelligence, have a target so dialed in as to realize hoe imminent the threat is... and somehow no federal law enforcement has in the lead up to that moment gotten to where they might be able to act directly? As crappy as Detroit is, it isn't Fallujah in 2005 where there may simply be no way to get to a target on the ground.

In other words, we can give some lousy police officer the right to kill in self or others defense, but not the president if the situation warranted? That doesn't make much sense to me. I agree though that (overwhelmingly) the process should/must go through the courts, though I don't think outside an imminent situation for which maybe we haven't even thought of (which I suspect, was part of Holder's reasoning), that there should ever be a time where a drone strike would be legitimate or necessary outside of war on our own soil.

What would be the legitimate action to take, say, with hijacked planes with civilians heading toward NYC? With either a jet fighter or drone could get there, but what could the president order in such a situation, in your opinion?

[Gator_Tom66]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

In a potential terrorist situation of a large magnitude, say against a military installation etc...there could be a point where a drone would be a good or necessary weapon to take out the offender(s) so as to save others lives. And if joe schmo police officer can kill someone in defense of self and others, why wouldn't a president be able to?

But short of such an extreme circumstance is where we really run into problems, not least of which is this wanting of drones for surveillance and other purposes that violate privacy and due process.

The same argument goes for waterboarding - right?

Of course it does.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Gator_Tom66

The same argument goes for waterboarding - right?

Of course it does.

Attempt at a thread hijack-right?

Of course it is.

More seriously, waterboarding and the larger torture issue offers not a wholly good parallel example. On the one hand, under the Laws of War, there is a right to kill. On the other, there is a legal convention banning torture, which would suggest that there is something worse or "more wrong" about torture vs killing.

But as far as a president goes, in parallel imminent situations, it could be (or is) that the president doesn't have a legal right to order torture but could order the killing of someone.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

In other words, we can give some lousy police officer the right to kill in self or others defense, but not the president if the situation warranted? That doesn't make much sense to me. I agree though that (overwhelmingly) the process should/must go through the courts, though I don't think outside an imminent situation for which maybe we haven't even thought of (which I suspect, was part of Holder's reasoning), that there should ever be a time where a drone strike would be legitimate or necessary outside of war on our own soil.

What would be the legitimate action to take, say, with hijacked planes with civilians heading toward NYC? With either a jet fighter or drone could get there, but what could the president order in such a situation, in your opinion?

Will the President be patrolling the streets, putting his neck on the line, poking around dangerous neighbor hoods to respond to the twelfth domestic dispute called out to that neighbor hood in a week? Will the President be attempting to stop armed robberies anytime soon? These are the why Policemen have the right to carries weapons and fire them. It's simply a different thing.

To your second scenario -- it would be a hard decision to make. Who knows what the legitimate action would be? There are a thousand variables to even consider in a scenario like that. However, I'm not sure it's really even all that comparable of a scenario.

[Minister_of_Information]

I thought Holder's letter was fine for the most part.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

Will the President be patrolling the streets, putting his neck on the line, poking around dangerous neighbor hoods to respond to the twelfth domestic dispute called out to that neigh boor in a week? Will the President be attempting to stop armed robberies anytime soon? These are the why Policemen have the right to carries weapons and fire them. It's simply a different thing.

To your second scenario -- it would be a hard decision to make. Who knows what the legitimate action would be? There are a thousand variables to even consider in a scenario like that. However, I'm not sure it's really even all that comparable of a scenario.

I don't think the president has to be patrolling the streets, just as a judge wouldn't be either, nor would a jury or anyone else but the police (or military as it were). Implicit in your comment seems to me the movement toward the use of drones for non-military policing purposes, for which I certainly am concerned. But it's not simply a different thing (i.e. pres vs. police) when we are talking about an imminent threat to people's lives.

However inarticulate I was in earlier posts, I only sought to try to define a possible situation such as on the scale of 9/11 in which a drone might be the best tool to eliminate the threat (say coming from an American citizen). In other words, a situation of a kind that is very different then the more regular situations encountered in law enforcement. But if we are going to give folks on the lowest rungs of the pole the right to kill, why wouldn't we give those who carry the most responsibility?

Earlier, on another related thread, I made the point that we need to have this discussion and clear policy needs to be enacted, one which I would hope would legally limit in strong terms the uses of drones in policing and/or military operations inside our borders, just as the SCOTUS just rejected the warrantless and time limitless use of GPS tracking devices since they violated due process.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

In other words, we can give some lousy police officer the right to kill in self or others defense, but not the president if the situation warranted? That doesn't make much sense to me. I agree though that (overwhelmingly) the process should/must go through the courts, though I don't think outside an imminent situation for which maybe we haven't even thought of (which I suspect, was part of Holder's reasoning), that there should ever be a time where a drone strike would be legitimate or necessary outside of war on our own soil.

What would be the legitimate action to take, say, with hijacked planes with civilians heading toward NYC? With either a jet fighter or drone could get there, but what could the president order in such a situation, in your opinion?

Well, when you put it that way... yes, obviously. Outside the realm of action movies, there really aren't situations in which only the President can get a thing done by their own act. By definition, any situation in which the choice to take the life of an American citizen will pass constitutional muster, is not likely, to the Nth degree, to be one of those "only the President, only this instant, no time for even the faintest nod to the idea of due process" faculty lounge hypos.

Again, if we are talking about something that intelligence has been following closely enough for long enough to even make it plausible to have the target confirmed, to be aware of not only the danger but of its imminence... but not to have gone ahead and engaged federal, state, or local law enforcement to move in? Again, Dearborn is not a "hot LZ".

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Well, when you put it that way... yes, obviously. Outside the realm of action movies, there really aren't situations in which only the President can get a thing done by their own act. By definition, any situation in which the choice to take the life of an American citizen will pass constitutional muster, is not likely, to the Nth degree, to be one of those "only the President, only this instant, no time for even the faintest nod to the idea of due process" faculty lounge hypos.

Again, if we are talking about something that intelligence has been following closely enough for long enough to even make it plausible to have the target confirmed, to be aware of not only the danger but of its imminence... but not to have gone ahead and engaged federal, state, or local law enforcement to move in? Again, Dearborn is not a "hot LZ".

Which is, in different words, basically how Holder's letter reads to me. But I wasn't talking about intelligence being followed and then the president identifying some target who at the time is just walking down the street, but not engaging in any imminent threat to people, and killing them without due process.

Any discussion about presidential powers has to include such scenarios, and I for one want a very bright line without which the use or abuse of drones or other technology)can trickle down to other less than imminent danger situations that are much more likely to be a regular part of everyday life and thus a more immediate threat to our liberty.

This might not be Fallujah, but 9/11 did almost present us with such a situation, albeit with jet fighters. We scrambled them, but what could they have done had they gotten to, say, Flight 11 in time? Could they have shot it down legally?

[rivergator]

Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) epic 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan for CIA director finally came to an amicable resolution Thursday, but not before sparking a battle within the Republican Party hierarchy — the latest in a series of internal struggles the party has faced since the election.

On Paul’s side is the right-wing apparatus and their darlings in Congress — notably Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), who joined the filibuster. They were delighted by Paul’s highly public confrontation with the White House and cheered him on until the very end.

One the other side are the GOP foreign policy hawks, led by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who are Washington’s chief guardians of broad executive power when it comes to dealing with the country’s enemies.

They were furious with Paul’s attacks on President Obama’s drone policy.

“To somehow allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies, is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous,” McCain said Thursday morning on the Senate floor.

He read from a scathing Wall Street Journal editorial declaring that “if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about.”

link

[MichiGator2002]

Does McCain want to get taken seriously by anyone he doesn't rub elbows with in DC anymore?

Paul spotted some shady looking semantics and demanded clarity. McCain either a) thinks the American people prefer everyone giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone else in Washington as a collegial show of courtesy to just people being held to their words, or b) has somehow managed to not notice despite a direct campaign against and four years of dealing with this administration that they are the most hairsplitting semanticists possibly ever in American politics. Or both. He comes off looking aloof, or naive. Or both.

[channingcrowderhungry]

I appreciate everything John has done for this county, and I used to have a lot of respect for him. That's waned greatly since he selected Palin as his VP. This proclamation by him doesn't surprise me. He's a political has been and what is wrong with the GOP.

[secgator]

Wasn't McCain at dinner with Obama at the same time this filibuster was going on last night? Kinda hard for McCain to dine with The Messiah and then come back to applauding Paul for his lengthy filibuster. McCain would not want to ruffle anyone's feather or appear on one side too strongly.

I agree with channing for sure--McCain is precisely one of the problems the GOP has. He has had his time and it was in the past. Graham is the one I can't really figure on this one though--he seemed to be THE most vocal on the Benghazi cover-up...and I mean THE MOST vocal one demanding explanations, etc....yet he too was at dinner with Obama and then comes back to slam Paul. McCain--it is par for the course with him, but Graham?....has me puzzled a bit.

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by secgator

Wasn't McCain at dinner with Obama at the same time this filibuster was going on last night? Kinda hard for McCain to dine with The Messiah and then come back to applauding Paul for his lengthy filibuster. McCain would not want to ruffle anyone's feather or appear on one side too strongly.

I agree with channing for sure--McCain is precisely one of the problems the GOP has. He has had his time and it was in the past. Graham is the one I can't really figure on this one though--he seemed to be THE most vocal on the Benghazi cover-up...and I mean THE MOST vocal one demanding explanations, etc....yet he too was at dinner with Obama and then comes back to slam Paul. McCain--it is par for the course with him, but Graham?....has me puzzled a bit.

Biggest winners in this filibuster..Rand Paul, the young guns of the Republican party that still have principles, and the American people. Biggest losers...Obama, Holder, the media who refused to cover the drone issue until the filibuster forced them to, Old RINO's like McCain and Graham, and the people on this board that tried to defend Obama and Holder's stance on refusing to clarify their position on executing Americans on US soil with drones before they have even been read their rights, much less given a fair trial.