Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Launches a Filibuster Against Drone Strikes On US Soil
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that at about 11:45 am today, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul took the floor of the Senate to launch one of the chamber's rarest spectacles: a genuine filibuster. Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. He called Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to rule out drone strikes to kill an American on U.S. soil 'more than frightening,' adding, 'When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It's an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, "No." The president's response? He hasn't killed anyone yet. We're supposed to be comforted by that.' Any senator can opt to hold the floor to speak on any matter, but the practice of speaking for hours on end is rare, especially in the modern-day Senate, where the chamber's rules are used more often to block legislation or to hold show votes on trivial matters. Paul has since been joined in his symbolic effort by Republicans Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). He has also gotten some bipartisan support from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.). Paul suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of people who might have been considered enemies of the state. 'Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'"
is not my friend. But damn if I'm not happy someone is asking these questions and putting up some serious opposition.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
He had a lot of people thinking about it, until he offered up dropping a Hellfire on Jane Fonda. Now they're all thinking "Let's not be hasty here. This is the perfect test case."
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes.
Why isn't EVERYONE IN CONGRESS alarmed by this?
That's why we elect the Populist candidate every once in awhile... keeps it interesting... well done, Senator, well done.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
After due process of law, isn't that the constitutional justification for the death penalty ?
It's more entertaining if you replace "drones" with "sharks with lasers on their head"
Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'"
Tricky question. I torn.
'Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'
Actually, I'd be all for that...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Once again, Ron Wyden's name appears in a noble context. The man needs to run for President.
Holder's comment that set off Paul was that he wouldn't rule out a President using drone attacks on US soil during such hypothetical events as those of 7 Dec 1941 and 11 Sep 2001. From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.
There's only reason why you would refuse to rule it out - it's already happened, and if it becomes commonly known, you'll have nowhere to retreat to politically.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Gotta say, this is perhaps the first time in my life I've ever wished to live in Kentucky, preferably in Rand Paul's district. Although I'm glad my Senator (Marco Rubio) is standing with him.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...as long as it was done by state governments. Or only targeted black people. The Paul's fully support State's Rights to oppress their citizens. They just don't want Washington to do it because of that pesky Civil Rights Act.
It seems apparent that Rand Paul, and many other Americans, don't actually understand what the drones actually are or how they work. The drones are no different to when the US uses cruise missiles launched from warships, or manned warplanes, or CIA wetwork teams to kill people in foreign countries. They're still controlled by the military, flown by actual operators.
There isn't some secret army of robots that Obama unilaterally controls which no one can stop. The only different thing which has happened is that the drones make doing something which tends to annoy other nations way easier since you don't run the risk of political blowback from a downed pilot in a foreign country.
Drone strikes are just a new military option. Sure there are new moral issues to consider about them, but that's not what Paul is arguing about. The problem is that there's an ill-defined war against an ill-defined enemy with an ill-defined battlefield and nobody's even thinking about how to declare the war over, let alone have some sort of objective assessment of its effectiveness. This sort of thing is bound to happen, drones or no drones. US troops shot US citizens in the US civil war, no arrest, no trial, no drones. There were almost certainly terrible abuses of this. The difference is the war was much better defined back then, and the practice ended with the end of the war.
But even though the drone business is a bit of a red herring, there's plenty of reason to filibuster Brennan. The issue of torture alone should keep him far, far from any position of power.
But, for lack of anyone standing up for any sensible principle, I guess I'll side with Paul because he's at least standing up. And he's doing it with a real honest-to-goodness filibuster, not some backroom procedural no-accountability nonsense.
People get killed by local, state, and federal employees with bullets ... where is due process in that situation. Statesman is trying to salvage a dead-end career. Due process needs to be across the board.
Anyone remember the MOVE bombing in 1985? Drone or no drone, this is what we're moving towards.
Proverbs 21:19
Saxby Chambliss wouldn't be saying no if there were a republican in the Oval Office.
I'd vote for that!
is a fool. Nobody with a brain would ever stand against his intellectual superiors. He rebels against the genetic and mental superiority of the democratic party because he is mentally challenged. I'll bet he has a habit of eating his own shit.
Garbage in, garbage out. Vote for the real movers and shakers in Washington, D.C., vote Democrat. Don't vote for the limp wristed faggots in the Republican Party, those gun-loving retards in the Tea Party, or those filthy pot smoking negro Libertarians. Vote for us because otherwise you are just telling the world that you are a motherfucking loser with an IQ of about 60.
Vote for the Democratic Party. We're gonna change America.
After reading this, Paul looks like he's overreacting:
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf
Obama asserts that due process does not necessarily imply trial by a jury of your peers.
Then perhaps President "Constitutional Scholar" should consider reading the document he supposedly went to school to study, specifically:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
In short, I don't give two fucks what some asshat politician 'asserts,' the definition is there, in plain fucking English, so that everyone will know their rights.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think this is more of a political stunt (see Ron Paul's showboating on the Gold Standard for decades) but unlike the Gold Standard, this is actually a moral/ethical line attempting to be drawn rather than pure greed being the motivating factor.
Remember Terminator 2? No Fate right?
Do you know why the machines are rising up against us? It's because machines are programmed to do one thing efficiently. With drones that's either monitor or kill.
What happens when the Drone operators can barely tell the difference between real people going about their ways, and terrorism (see the leaked video of from Iraq that where the Americans killed the journalists, but over the audio you hear them calling them terrorists.)
Drone operators have to be held accountable for every action. On US soil these things should not even be armed with anything other that tear gas.
Well. If drones are good enough to attack Afghans, why should there be an exception for americans? Also " the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes" wasn't a problem in Afghanistan.
But really. If you replace "americans" and "afghans" by "people", why can drones be allowed to kill some people and not some other. Again, nationality is not the issue. The question is more about either the reason to use drones or even to use drones at all.
Privacy is terrorism.
I don't like the idea of filibusters, it's a way to take advantage of the system and prevent legislation with majority support from passing. That said, I don't care for the drone strikes either. So I don't know which is the lesser of the two evils.
Do I support the filibuster, based on the contemptable bill it's trying to block, or do I condemn it since it could just as easily be used tomorrow to prevent passage of a bill I'd like to see pass and that has majority support? I suppose in the end, if the rest of the system were working correctly, (and often it's not) then majority should rule, and filibusters should be illegal. I can't support something that's bad in principle simply because it's convenient for me this time.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Due Process is the magic term.
No, Insurrection Act is the magic term. The President has the authority to use the military as needed to "suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition...that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
An armed drone strike is the functional equivalent of launching a manned jet strike. While there is a lot of hyperbole on both sides, this is one point we need to make sure stays absolutely clear. If you wouldn't hit it with an F-15 on US Soil, you shouldn't use a drone to do it.
Good-bye
Er, i would think Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year old son could demonstrate the damages of the loss of his father's income to support him when Obama assasinated him.
Oh wait! He can't! They killed him too.
Seriously, this tyrant Obama needs to be stopped.
I'd wager that calling for Obama's death by striving for a treason indightment, trial, conviction, and capital punishment, you know, subjecting him to the rule of law, would be twisted as a threat against the life of the president.
In Liberty, Rene
I agree. The constitution applies to EVERYONE, not just citizens.
HOWEVER, I'm going to get a bit pedantic and argue that 'held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime' is DIFFERENT than the government moving to kill you. The government is also charged with "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
IF you have a group of citizens in the position of being part of an Insurrection, the government isn't holding them to answer for a crime. It's treating them as enemy combatants. In which case no trial is necessary, and killing them isn't even really supposed to be a punishment.
That's why I sort of agree with Holder. My position at the moment is "While I cannot currently envision a scenario where a drone strike would be the best option against US Citizens on US Soil, I cannot rule out such a scenario occurring. The authorization for such action would have to come from the highest levels and be subject to the strictest scrutiny'.
I don't read AC A human right
in which case a filibuster would have done some good, for once.
all the Administration would have had to do is pass out a two sentence news release... "The Government is committed to securing our citizens' safety, as demanded in the Constitution. If we find enemy combatants in action within the nation's borders, we'll deal with them as on any other battlefield."
but then, the GOP is committed to NO for Obama's 8 years in office, so they're the drones boring in Congress. total warheads.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The ticket to win 538 electoral votes.
New Economic Perspectives
O verdadeiro problema é que é quase impossível de contestar em tribunais.
Replace "shouldn't" with "wouldn't" and I agree. That's exactly the thing - a drone is just a remote operated jet.
If we were discussing a device which would acquire and fire on targets completely autonomously, then there'd be something worth talking about it.
It seems apparent that Rand Paul, and many other Americans, don't actually understand what the drones actually are or how they work. The drones are no different to when the US uses cruise missiles launched from warships, or manned warplanes, or CIA wetwork teams to kill people in foreign countries. They're still controlled by the military, flown by actual operators.
There isn't some secret army of robots that Obama unilaterally controls which no one can stop. The only different thing which has happened is that the drones make doing something which tends to annoy other nations way easier since you don't run the risk of political blowback from a downed pilot in a foreign country.
You're totally right. I don't think any of us here support cruise missile stikes, bombardments by manned warplanes, or CIA hitsquads on American soil against US persons either. I think Senator Paul entirely understands what he's talking about. It's Eric Holder that doesn't understand that a drone strike is no different than the other methods you listed above.
Zero legislation is written in "plain fucking English". If you think it is, you're almost certainly wrong. Here, your problem is that you think "held to answer" covers every possible case of action against a person. "Held to answer" is about punishing for a crime. Holder wasn't talking about punishing a crime, he was talking about stopping one. Do you really think it's unconstitutional to kill someone to stop a big enough crime?
What the Administration wants to say is that the war on terror has no geographical boundary. In a war zone, the government is exempt from any due process requirements, because there are no courts operating in the zone, just soldiers.
Now apply this to the entire U.S. See how easy that was? So sure, Fonda can be targeted, if the military chain-of-command says she's a threat.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
"Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?"
Oh so tempting lol. Gut reaction is YES! and laughing while I do it but yeah I do see how a few consequences might possibly be sort of ethically questionable XD
The world would actually have been a marginally better place for it. A "Berkeley-be-gone" world :)
On second thought forget the Hellfire, a nuke would be more defensible :P
Comment removed based on user account deletion
but this is definitely a great moment for him. I hope he can keep it going until he forces an answer out of the White House.
This is how filibusters ought to be done!
The problem with saying "no drone strikes on US citizens on US soil" is that there are scenarios where a drone strike may be useful. If they are banned drones can never be used.
For example, say someone steals a tank or armours a bulldozer? Both have happened. Wouldn't if be great if they could be stopped by one missile? Perhaps a well defended radical group who have taken hostages?
This all goes back to "drone paranoia" and the false assumption that drones are not human controlled. We have no problems with helicopter surveillance but drone surveillance is bad. There is no outcry that the President has not outlawed jets firing on US citizens on US soil but if drones do it it is bad. When one outlaws the use of a tool a valid use will eventually come up and we will wish we had not banned it.
And of course any American which is defined as an "enemy combatant" will of course also be a "political opponent" naturally since if they agreed on their politics then they wouldn't be enemies would they? So, would that mean that drone strikes could be called on anti-war protests? On Occupy Wall Street protests? Strikes? It is not like the military hasn't been called in before for such various public displays of political opposition.
When they decide the U.S. Drone Strike Information Center will be based in Kentucky. Maybe put another one in Utah. Then spread those Drone manufacturing and ordinance plants around.
The only problem I have with this debate is the implicit assumption that it might be okay to murder non-Americans with drones.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"As part of the filibuster, Rand Paul will be reading through the script of 'Battlestar Galactica'. His aides are out shopping for an appropriately slinky red dress." Serious, heard it on reddit.
That's all I can say. The powerful just want more power and they will get it no matter what the common people say or do. It's just that simple.
Sorry America your screwed. But the rest of the world isn't that far behind so don't sweat it to much.
Urban Nightmare
Living the dream...
Really, because everybody and there mom was fine if Bush would have used and F-15 to take out the plane on 9/11 many said so after the fact. What you seem to think in your conspiracy land, where Obama hates that your so smart and wants to use his power to stop you from educating the people, is that this means obama is coming after you, so just to clear things up, if the black helicopter were not coming over the hills for me during the Bush years, Obama's drones are not coming after you now. I'm sorry your not important to anyone in power don't sweat it, but that's just how it goes when your only a threat in your own mind.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are correct that drones strikes are not fundamentally different than those other forms of military attack. That said, in no way does that mean that Rand Paul doesn't understand the drone situation. He's merely leveraging recent news regarding them to highlight the fact that these sorts of attacks can take place at all. THAT is the real issue here, rather than that it just so happens to be drones carrying them out.
Also, we should keep in mind that Obama, as President of the United States, is also the Commander in Chief of the military, effectively allowing him to exercise unilateral control over much of what we're discussing. Ideally, there would be checks and balances in place to ensure that no one's rights are violated, and that if they are he will be held accountable for having done so, but with secret tribunals where you are neither present nor informed of their having happened taking the place of true due process, even those checks are being stripped away.
Yeah, I expect that.
Come and get me. I fucking dare ya!
I sincerely believe in dying on my feet instead of living on my knees if necessary.
In Liberty, Rene
I Agree! This "Regime" has been CHIPPING away at OUR Rights and Our Protection AGAINST a Tyrannical Gov, or a Gov that we find ourselves NEEDING Protection from! What a bunch of brain dead zombies who do NOT realize just HOW serious this is! Really?? You all do NOT believe this is a Dangerous Precendent?? Might as well live in a Country far worse than China or North Korea, or any other Country where You as a Citizen or NON Citizen, will truly have to Pray you yourselves or a Member of your family is Not Targeted as OTHER COLLATERAL Damage...aka Children and INNOCENT People HAVE BEEN Taken OUT by drones or oops I Missed the REAL TARGET....because IT HAS HAPPENED and if you people....? Give this TOO to THIS REGIME....we then HAVE stepped a Million More steps to a Serious, Serious, Long standing Problem with OUR RIGHTS to a trial, or any Prior knowledge, and it will ALSO make More people AFRAID to GO AGAINST ANYTHING the GOV wants....we already have far too many of "those" already,,...but truly, this WILL give FAR TOO MUCH POWER to THE Pres and TO the "so-called" DOJ....which Please people, it is NOT the Department of Justice, it IS OBAMAS Department of HIS "Justice" Not OURS.....and Homeland Security, now the CIA? WOW...are WE really this CLUELESS?? Look to BENGHAZI!! More Unanswered and NEVER TO BE Answered I am SURE! YOU GO MR. Paul, too bad More don't have this FORTITUDE AND Intelligence, and frankly....balls to Stand up to Try and Protect ALL OF OUR RIGHTS as US Citizens! Our so-called Rights are slipping, no being Chipped away HUGE Chunks at a time, YET...How do you like what's happened to the so-called 9/11 Murderers? Or any of the COMBATANTS and Murderers of US Citizens on US SOIL! Yet....we are giving OUR GOV the right to Target US?? WHY do YOU think this is?? Geez, Wake UP PEOPLE!! Wake up!! It's already almost too late!
And this is the crux of the whole, thing, right here, its what everyone thinks, oh the government will put me on a list because i'm so smart and have figured out there secret and i'm telling everybody and educating the people on what a threat the president is the country. Your not on a list, not even the majority of the people on here care what you have to say or your ideas, let alone the president.
Filibuster to stop drones == "Drone on to turn drones off"
Due process--lightning fast. Would purchase again! A+++++++
I listened for an hour or so while I got other work done and didn't find any room for disagreement with him. Well, 99.5% is pretty good.
Dr. Paul's presentation of Obama's position as a weak form of martial law is airtight in its logic. If the United States is operating under the Rule of Law, then Obama/Holder's position cannot hold. If Obama's position does hold, then the territory of the United States is under battlefield rules, or martial law conditions.
That it's "soft martial law" isn't comforting to anybody who's read history or studied the Constitution and laws.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Of course, there is an "except" clause right afterward that you snipped out.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
During the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921.
So don't think it can't happen.
No he is not going to drop a hell fire on Jane he is going to give her a woman on the century or something like that award to her for being a traitor to our men in arms, hows that for a president. We do remember Jane and her visits during Vietnam what a slap in the face to our veterans or better yet Co^% in A$$.
You're missing the point.
Drones are getting a lot of mindshare because they're the context in which this debate is happening. But the debate is not about drones. It's about the White House's authority to kill Americans, on American soil, just because the President wants them dead.
In this instance, everyone with a brain should agree with Senator Paul -the idea of killing Americans (especially in America) without any real due process ought to be abhorrent to everyone.
First of all I'm not the one posting as an AC. Secondly, if Bush were president I highly doubt you'd be so complacent. Thirdly, Bush never assassinated a US citizen. Fourthly, in my opinion, this is and should be illegal. That is the bar the President should have to pass, in order to order a strike like this. If it is the right call, as it would have been on 9/11, congress and the senate will forgive him/her.
Yep. Obama basically wants a new, improved, all-American version of the Star Chamber.
It is factually correct to say that there could be a hypothetical, however unlikely, future scenario where it would be both lawful and Constitutional for the President to authorize the use of military force within the United States. (This already occurred during the Civil War.) That would include any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". "Drones" are an evolution in warfare that started with the rock, the spear, the bow and arrow and continued with guns, cannons, bombs, and missiles â" nothing more.
The ONLY valid question is whether it is lawful to execute a military or covert action under some particular circumstance, and whether it is lawful and necessary to target an individual or a place. I'm not making those value judgments, but the tool used, while absolutely an enabler, is utterly and completely irrelevant. Furthermore, both Brennan's and Holder's responses are completely accurate and not contradictory. It is accurate to say that CIA does not have this authority in the United States, and it is accurate to say that there could be a scenario where the military would have such authority. There is no conflict, no subterfuge, no conspiracy.
People are conflating multiple things. The justification for targeted killing of US citizens OUTSIDE the US includes several narrow criteria, a key one of which is being OUTSIDE the US. Holder's response is that the President has the authority to use the military within the US, which is factually correct, and necessarily includes any weapon in the US arsenal, including "drones". So why would they be "ruled out"? I understand the arguments, but people are really conflating multiple issues, and don't seem to even understand why we're using unmanned aircraft where we're using them in the first place.
If Paul wants the President to "rule out" the use of some particular military tool on US soil, why isn't he also asking the President to "rule out" manned aircraft, guns, or anything else?
Even the Posse Comitatus Act is very straightforward:
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
The "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress" allows domestic use of the military in cases authorized by Congress OR the Constitution. Many legal scholars would agree that the President's inherent Article II authority would allow such employment of the military -- as was the case with President Lincoln. This is not a new concept.
If people can't envision any case where it would ever be appropriate to use US military force on US soil, then they aren't very imaginative -- or knowledgeable of history.
Of course, if there ever were a September 11-scale event where it would be clearly appropriate to employ the US military on US soil, there would be a large contingent of Americans -- who I am ashamed to call fellow citizens -- would immediately think it was a "false flag operation" used as an excuse to carry out domestic military operations.
Paul doesn't really want debate; he is pandering to those who think the government is constantly looking for ways to "go after" Americans at home, and to people with this paranoia complex, it connects quite well.
So your position is that you need to go to a judge and show evidence on which to base a warrant to go arrest someone suspected of having committed a crime, but no warrant and no oversight of any kind is needed to simply blow the guy into bits if he's suspected of being likely to commit a crime at some point in the future.
Seriously?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
1657 THE PROVINCIAL LETTERS by Blaise Pascal
translated by Thomas M'Crie
I gather from it that this same heresy is one of an entirely new species. It is not the sentiments of M. Arnauld that are heretical; it is only his person.
This is a personal heresy. He is not a heretic for anything he has said or written, but simply because he is M. Arnauld. This is all they have to say against him. Do what he may, unless he cease to be, he will never be a good Catholic. The grace of St. Augustine will never
be the true grace, so long as he continues to defend it.
Insurrection is an uprising that incapacitates the local authorities. Getting drone-bombed while sitting in a cafe is not a use case for insurrection.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Maybe. Maybe not. Do YOU want to take the chance?
Face it. Talk of "lists" and presidentially-ordered assasinations has a HUGE chilling effect on free speech, essential to protecting our liberties.
I expect there should be millions, no, tens of millions, of Americans, crying "Foul!" But, a large percentage are scared.
Well, fuck that. Who am I to call for others to point to the president and cry tyrant, if I lack the courage to do so myself?
I'm not pointing a gun. I'm not suggesting circumventing the law, only that he be held to it, like the rest of us.
I point, and I acuse. Perhaps it may induce others to have more courage and do the same. Perhaps out voices might become deafening.
Then again, perhaps not, but it is certain they won't if I stay silent.
In Liberty, Rene
I'd support drone strikes on US soil if Fonda is on the target list.
Make assault rifles illegal, then make drone strikes legal.
(I'm not really a Libertarian crackpot, but boy does is our incompetent government behaving like they have an efficient plan for a dictatorship)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Can I fire, sir? Can I?
I hate that guy. He stole my girlfriend.
Can I fire?
If we're going to say that drone strikes are ok, then what's the difference whether they happen on US soil or not? It's an awfully arbitrary delineation to say that this technology should only be used against bad guys if they happen to reside on foreign soil.
If you believe the use of military drones are ok, then why not have them patrolling the skies wherever you suspect bad guys are hiding out?
So he is upset about drone strikes that havent happened? But he is ok with police and government officials to be able to carry out manned strikes anytime they want? Whats the difference? Police or fbi performing in person strikes on us soil, or performing strikes on us soil with a drone? Its the same damned thing.
Its not like a drone can or will do something that a real person can or would do since the drone is still piloted by a real person. The drone just becomes the extension of that person but they still work for the exact same law enforcement agency that already sends in men on us soil
I think assualt drones in the us is a good thing really. They could supply recon and backup for law enforcement. Say DEA makes an assualt, a drone or two in air can give them a much better view from the outside than say a helicopter and is much less visible to the enemy and if need be it can offer fire support without putting a agent in harms way.
So I say again, what is different about a drone flying around or a cop driving around? Nothing thats what.
Ron paul and most of you guys are too damn paranoid for your own good and always expect the worst.
And whats with the jane fonda comment? Thats just really stupid and off topic. First of all, that was 50 years ago and secondly if jane fonda was considered an enemy of the state she would be dead or in jail, but guess what? She is neither in jail or killed. Thats just really stupid to say and has no bearing on things or even makes sense at all to the topic at hand.
you know you can trade freedom for the world for your soul. Once you're dead who cares he can have the soul while the rest are free.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
GOOD FOR RAND - BRAVO!!!
Tempting, but no.
The article you linked to described privately hired aircraft, not government aircraft being used to kill US citizens. Of course it being Wikipedia it may not be a definitive description.
This site, presumably pro-union describes it that way as well.
http://www.apwu.org/laborhistory/10-4_blairmountain/10-4_blairmountain.htm
Regardless of what is being said I don't see a problem with the President authorizing use of force to kill a US citizen if the citizen is actively resisting law enforcement with his own weaponry. Drones or whatever the means doesn't signify much to me.
The problem is the idea of an Afghanistan style take out. That is too much like a summary execution without due process.
To me that would be grounds for impeachment and possible other legal action.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The constitution is in place for a reason. Laws are made for reasons. If you constrain law enforcement and the military too much, bad things could happen to our country. Freedom does come at a price. Having what we have has come at the cost of many lives. Law enforcement is responsible for taking peoples lives when the bad American is going to do something bad, and there are no other alternatives other than to take the bad person's life. There could easily be a time when law enforcement cannot or does not have the ability to act against bad Americans, and the military with their drones may be the only thing able to deal with these bad people. By making a law that says drones cannot be used to kill an American could easily cost another 3000 Americans their lives. This is a very complicated world we live in. We sometimes need to do things we are not proud of to protect this country, but I think people need to truly look around and understand why they have the freedoms they have today. You can be outraged at what Holder says, but at least understand why he is saying what he is saying.
You know, I've gotta ask. What's the difference between a law enforcement officer killing someone in person, versus a law enforcement officer killing someone by remote? If the guy needs killing, why risk law enforcement personnel to do it when a machine can do the job with no doubt substantially reduced risk for collateral damage?
And remember, a "drone" doesn't necessarily mean a Predator. It could just as easily be a quad-copter firing a .223 calibre weapon.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Drones aren't that much different to assault rifles.
You're totally right. I don't think any of us here support cruise missile stikes, bombardments by manned warplanes, or CIA hitsquads on American soil against US persons either.
I disagree. There are circumstances under which I would absolutely support those things. VERY NARROW circumstances, mind you, but I wouldn't want them to be completely ruled out as a potential response to exigent circumstances.
"rogue tank drivers were killed by police without military being involved"
"we do NOT have a constitutional basis for killing U.S. citizens without due process"
Those two statements are completely at odds. The rouge tank drivers were killed (presumably by law enforcement) WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. There was no hearing, there was no judge, there was no jury. They were summarily executed based on the mere supposition that they intended to cause harm, without a trial.
Drones have nothing to do with it. Whether it's a man with a rifle pulling a trigger or a man with a drone-mounted rifle pushing a trigger button is really just semantics from a legal standpoint. It is currently allowed on American citizens who pose a viable threat to their surroundings and are otherwise unable to be restricted in their actions.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Why is this a bad thing? Air force jets that took out a plane headed to Washington was OK.
Let's not dance around the issue. Drones are military hardware. Eric Holder thinks it is OK for Barack Obama to kill Americans on US soil with Military Drones.
There is no such thing as a Drone. There are only 'Military Drones'. Use only the phrase 'Military Drone' never just 'Drone'.
When the word 'Drone' becomes so odious, that no General will ever get the money to buy one, that no politician wants his named attached to them, maybe then, just maybe, there will be a little more thinking, and fewer nerds with joysticks and fewer wannabe generals with killlists, committing war crimes and killing innocents.
When the public gets fed up with anything 'Drone' and F35'S that are still somewhere between vaporware and hanger queen, maybe some general will wonder what his is going to put up in the air against the migs.
To big to fail, and woulda, coulda, shoulda are no good when the klaxons are screaming MIG!
Actually, he is filibustering the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director. Mr Paul stated several times during his filibuster that CIA has nothing to do with drones on American soil.
Yes.. and no. It's also the functional equivalent of a SWAT trooper with an automatic weapon.
No. Your point only holds because you've falsely defined one means of delivering ordinance on target as wrong because of gross physical similarities to another means - while ignoring other, equally valid but less colorful equivalencies.
The issue at hand isn't *how* someone is attacked - but who holds the legal authority to authorize the attack and process under the law by which he receives that authority.
'Drone Strike' is just shorthand, much like 'domestic spying' or 'Gitmo' is shorthand. Focusing on the shorthand rather then the actual issue is just distracting word play that is best left to adolescent teens arguing with their parents.
The idea of closing Gitmo wasn't because we disliked the name or property location. It was because it didn't give people the right to due process. Moving it, closing it, renaming it 'sunshine and flower petals' wasn't going to 'fix' the Gitmo problem, since it was an issue with indefinite detention that was the issue. We just use 'Gitmo' for shorthand so we don't have to spell it out to the children each time.
Likewise, 'Drone Strikes' isn't really the issue about the technology as much as the executive branch being given the authority to kill Americans on American soil. Part of the justification for using hellfire missles is they make it easier to reach targets that are very difficult to reach without substantial risk. But we're talking about using this on American soil, where it would be pretty easy to capture them instead. And that, is what you should be worried about, extra judicial killing (some would say murder), not parsing the terminology.
But it seems you would like to focus on what the definition of the term 'is' is, and that's fine as long as your not old enough to drink yet.
I'm sure they would launch a hellfire at Jane if they had them, then. But it's too late for us to protest the missles now. When noted several years ago. that they were against international law by collateral damage. You folks laughed. When noting that we are war criminals now of the most henious type, in line with pol pot, and that ilk, you laughed. People, those amoung us that are afraid of their shadows, that will not speak up against the wrongs are just as bad as those commiting the wrongs. And i believe that if you read the geneva convention, It Says That. There are more articles that it is more pervasive then you, and more perverse, I have been reading in wired, we are supporting contractors who do torture. And pay for the torture. Your and my tax dollar. That tarnished us also.
The light is fading, will we stay the beacon at the top of the hill?
It's been going on for quite a few years now. I don't know why anybody can seriously expect bad behaviour abroad to stay abroad. A good example is a bunch of French torturers who came home from Algeria, didn't like the French President and then decided that since they were used to working outside the rules they may as well do the same at home and try to kill their head of state.
A frequent form of argument these days is personal redefinition of words in order to make any furthur discussion meaningless. It's become so common that many see it as perfectly valid and not a failure of communication. When such people as Rumsfeld are seen to be some sort of academic elite it is not a huge surprise that people are following such bad examples.
So the short answer is no - not a dictator, king, prince, warlord, whatever - a lazy label is just going to mislead instead of telling the full story.
What's the difference between a law enforcement officer killing someone in person, versus a law enforcement officer killing someone by remote?
Because a police officer isn't supposed to kill anybody unless acting in the immediate protection of self or innocent parties. It's always meant as a last resort when all other options are exhausted.
Drones don't function in that capacity even a little bit. They assassinate based on pre-meditated kill-lists with no public office oversight. You don't know who decides who lives or dies, and if you happen to be the target, you have no way of defending or appealing.
Even when those targeted people may be extracted, arrested for legal trial through non-lethal means, they are assassinated anyway, often with large numbers of innocent bystander casualties.
One justification used is that of expense. "It costs too much to do it nicely. It costs too much to avoid killing by standers."
Are you happy having your life reduced to value in terms of cost/benefit analysis rather than your citizen's rights?
I'm not.
Because they will be happy to do what Obama is doing once the regain control.
They want to ban guns, fine... they want to use drones on american soil, fine...
guess what? I'm building my own drones... for my personal protection from the goverment, and from criminals... lets see where we go from here...
As with Panetta during the Hagel nomination, the incumbent to the office is strongly expected to stay at their post until relieved. That is understood when they take the job. They would be harshly criticized for skipping out for anything less than life-threatening illness.
These are public officials, not just Obama's clerks. They have their own sworn duties and responsibilities to carry out, with a particular mind toward what happens to various agencies in the event of a president's death or disability or a constitutional crisis of some kind.
Or an armed soldier. Soldiers are not allowed to operate in a law enforcement/peace keeping capacity on US soil except under very specific conditions.
Ken
During many slashdot debates, claims of liberal media bias are often poo pooed do to the tribalism of modern politics. I thought it would be a good idea to take a moment on this issue that most of us agree with to point out this issue. Here are the headlines from major media, which most Americans get their news:
1. NBC: Not on the front page at all. If you click on politics section, it is the third story in. (note: to their credit they had it on the front page for an hour or so)
2. CBS News: The story does not exist.
3. CNN: The story did not exist until 24 minutes ago (9:00 pm central) under only the politics section
4. ABC NEWs: In the politics section: Front page (recent move an hour ago, from buried deep in web page)
5. Foxnews: Front page
Note: ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN DID decide that Obama offering to have dinner with some republicans is worthy of a front page spot, all day
These are serious times with serious issues. If we are going to fix things, we need an arena idea with facts presented as honestly as possible. Not by a few members of the journolist with an agenda. Can we all agree on that too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't be mistaken, just as was the case with his fathers, Rand Paul is not honestly doing this in the name of liberty. Rand Paul is doing this because it is an opportunity to extend class inequality just a little bit longer. Remember Rand Paul went to college and medical school on his father's dime. He then rode into the senate on his father's legacy. There is nothing he values more than keeping his (and his father's) money. By keeping this debate open, he is able to further kick down the road any senate discussion of budgetary matters. He is also able to further delay any legislative action on actual health care matters, which makes both his and his father's practices more profitable.
Just like his father, Rand Paul is set to profit well by continuing economic disparity. He wants nothing more than to see the expansion of - or at the very least the stasis of - the deeply regressive taxation system in the US. He is all in favor of trampling on the lower economic classes in order to improve the welfare of his own.
This invariably erodes the rights and opportunities of the lower classes. This is how you bring about fascism for the people.
"[I haven't] killed anyone yet". Famous words.
If Obama can get away with it, like Capone, then he has already done it and many times over, already.
I particularly enjoyed your doublespeak:
Arguing for higher taxes on some bracket of population while arguing for subsidies for yourself is discrimination
Because of course anyone who can use a calculator already knows that the taxes that both Pauls constantly champion for are enormously unfair to the lower economic classes and tremendously beneficial to the higher income brackets - indeed they are, as you said, a subsidy for one bracket.
So as usual, while you are trying to fool people into thinking you are some sort of champion for liberty and freedom, your goals are transparent. You want to see the poor suffer so your heroes can pay lower taxes. You want more power to the people you admire most, with no concern for how it effects others.
In other words you are campaigning to bring fascism for the people.
We already use swat teams to take out dangerous criminals (such as in a hostage situation) when innocent lives are directly in danger. Is anyone here actually going to say you have a problem with a machine pulling the trigger rather than a man in these situations. Context is always important, but you can't tell me that there aren't use for such things. For instance, it might be easy to send a spider bot in through an air vent when the shades are drawn.
I don't like it, but these things do happen and to rule out an entire class of technology seems over bearing. That said, I don't think this is the kind of tech you should be using on drug lords, pick pockets, or even road side muggers. Context is really everything.
Petition to remove Eric Holder from office:
http://wh.gov/GGrN
The Tea Party was actually started by big tabacco in the 1980s to stop taxation on cigarettes.
And these people think they are against crony capitalism.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Ah 60's Jane Fonda. T'would be nice to hit that like a Hellfire missle.
I tend to think of the slashdot crowd as cynical but now I see you all are just as naive as soon as you're fed the rhetoric you want to hear.
Question: When is Rand Paul going to *actually introduce legislation* that limits presidential power?
Answer: never, because he wants to be president. This is just a ploy for fundraising and notoriety.
And if you don't believe me go ahead and ask him yourself. Ask him what legisation he is going to propose and when. Then sit back and enjoy your form letter asking for more money to "continue the fight" or whatever vague language has tested best on your demographic.
Please, for the good of the country, be more cynical.
Yes and no - drones are designed for loitering and stealthy* ground attack, while the F-15 is a superiority fighter. This difference of missions causes drones to be armed with generally lighter ordnance that is shorter ranged. This means some targets that would be inappropriate for heavy ordnance can still be engaged, but other than possibly reducing potential collateral damage, your point remains.
*: By stealthy in this context, I mean small and quiet rather than radar absorbing.
So its ok to wipe out the other 6.8 billion people on the planet who are not US citizens, its no wonder why they don't like the US that much.
And again, you might to review the laws on this matter because it has always been legal to do this. If an American is about to fly a jetliner into a building, well guess what, it's actually legal to blow it out of the sky with military forces.
The correct question - not being addressed, and notably, which Rand Paul - in his capacity as a senator - is not introducing any legislation to deal with - is what Due Process should be for the use of this power.
Instead he's filibustering that White House won't say they can't do this - which is the right thing for them to say, because the answer is, yes they can. If they say they won't then next up on Fox News we get "Obama won't stop a dirty bomb by domestic muslims using any means! Are you at risk?"
In a way, it's actually refreshing to see somebody take the floor and speak for 12 hours straight, like they had to do in the old days. I especially liked this quote from the last hour:
I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond’s record, but I’ve discovered that there are some limits to filibustering and I’m going to have to go take care of one of those in a few minutes here
Although it must be said that he had help from some of his colleagues who appeared at various times to recite bits and pieces of pop culture and literature, including at one point a rather lengthy passage from Shakespeare's Henry V, interspersed with a few quotations from the film Patton. It was actually quite amusing, in a quaint sort of way, and definitely reminiscent of Mr Smith Goes to Washington.
People are ok using drones illegally in other people's country but not on themselves? That's hypocritical. If you want to kill brown people without a trial then you deserve the same treatment.
Face it, you no longer are safe in your own country, probably you have more freedom living in Venezuela or Paraguay, or whatever. Im never coming back to USA.
"Macro" Rubio is an excellent mis-spelling of his name! It perfectly captures the ability of the Rubio action figure politician to spout key political phrases in response to hot-button questions, just like a macro executes a sequence of key-strokes in response to the macro-command+defining-keystrike. It also implies the reflexive behavior of this political spouting: no thinking is required, just say what your tea-party or other masters want you to say! [equal opportunty political sniper here; ask me to respond to Obama or Holder's bizarre political anti-constitutional contortions, and I would gladly do so!]
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html ... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ..."
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
That said, I sent notes to my Senators to support Rand Paul on the narrower issue he raised via "FreedomWorks" (not saying I endorse all of their or his other campaigns).
http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-%E2%80%9Cstands-with-rand%E2%80%9D-paul%E2%80%99s-senate-fili
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
It's actually worse. There are situations where a jet pilot can feel that he has to fire in self-defense: say he's buzzing a compound and gets shot at by the guys inside.
With drones, there is no self-defense applicable, so they will only ever fire in attack. Not soldiers: executioners.
Not a bad idea actually.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Man, I've seen some distorted submissions, but this one takes the cake. Paul was filibustering Obama's nominee to head the CIA, not drones, though he repeatedly hit on themes of the overreach of executive power. It was grandstanding by Paul, period. Its purpose was to get him some exposure in the news cycle, and that was it -- mission accomplished. For what it is worth, *was* is the proper tense; it's been over since 1am EST today)
If you won't have military tanks on the streets of LA or NY or any city, then you can't have military drones in the skies.
No, it's BECAUSE you won't have tanks on the streets, that you want to use drones.
Tanks are impractical for city fighting. Infantry can hide around buildings and sneak up on tanks to disable them.
Fighter jets are less impractical, but as we have seen with the War on Terror, there are ways for infantry to hide from them too.
These big weapons also cause a lot of damage to the surrounding area. It doesn't do government much good if they destroy the infrastructure in the cities they want to take. I mean, if you're going to rob a bank, you don't want to destroy the vaults containing the gold.
Drones on the other hand would probably be more practical and efficient. At the very least, drones are more fuel efficient - it costs a lot more to keep the tanks and jets rolling.
Drones are also probably cheaper than human soldiers. Human soldiers are workers for government, and we all know that workers are pesky costly things that demand too much, and if a smart business owner can find a way to replace workers with machines, he should. This is why government is so aggressive in developing drones
I would posit that Rand Paul is only nominally a Republican. He chose the Republican Party machinery to get elected. He is really a libertarian and I think the Republican most likely to declare himself independent if the party tries to force him to act gainst his beliefs. He is his own man. Now the real question is if he has this independent streak because of deeply heald beliefs or a cynical power play at populism. Whatever your politics, you've got to admit from a pure political standpoint this move is a masterpiece of timing and media manipulation. Watch Rand Paul closely the next ten years or so. He is a unpredictable force who plans on going places. I am not yet sure if he is Angel or Devil; but he has much bigger plans.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You have two political parties that are using the left / right hoax on the public. They are of one faction controlled by an unseen entity. Why do Congressmen and Senators that make unpopular decisions still get elected. Look at Pelosi or Reid and tell me they are popular. So long as the American political system is seen as only a two party system there will always be a threat to freedom. That is why the founders wrote the Constitution in the words carefully chosen. This Administration has violated the law of the land and no one is watching or listening because of the you against us mindset. Wake up America or soon it will be to late.
And again, you might want to read those laws yourself. It is only legal if you are in immediate danger. Of course you are trying really hard to make up scenarios that are legal to justify that which is not.
Yes, if a person is waving a gun around in a crowded mall, a cop can shoot and kill him without a trial because he's being an immediate threat. What a cop cannot do is shoot you on sight because there's a warrant out on you. So, when the administration blew up a 16 year old kid sitting in a cafe in Yemen, I find it hard to believe that coffee he was drinking was an immediate threat, you on the other had would have me believe he was getting ready to fly a jetliner into a building.
I trust you are too thick headed to understand the difference, luckily there are people who are not, and are working in your behalf.
No really -
To keep the senate in session, provide staffing & electricity... How much did it cost? And to what aim?
... because the "except" clause is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Unless, of course, President Obama declared War on The People. Then it would be relevant.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
First reply to the first post (partial):
There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".
Tell me the difference between requiring due process because they're American, and due process because someone wants them dead? Also, I think you meant to say "without any due process ought to be abhorrent to any American" rather than "without any due process ought to be abhorrent to everyone"
What you said is just plain racist. The post I mentioned (before bending you over) is 100% correct. When it comes to dangerous people (without getting caught in semantics, shall we say dangerous people are the folks that will kill without due process - yes, any nationality), due process is all there is between believing/acting like you're above someone, to giving them the same human rights that you would expect.
In a perfect world, due process would be held publicly, with a neutral third party judge/jury; but with matters of state, some things aren't appropriate for the public - which isn't to say it's not appropriate for a neutral third party judge/jury - my point being, if there were said party, they wouldn't be allowed to speak of it, so who would know but them? Just because it isn't plastered on the Web doesn't mean it's not true / didn't happen etc etc.
Look at it this way Rand. You've just spent a very hard exhausting week in Washington doing nothing and blocking every effort to actually do something to benefit the lower and middle class in the U.S. You're almost home at your mansion and feeling good that you stuck it good to that good for nothing black president. Unknown to you there is a person/terrorist/patriot set up in the woods just 200 yards from where your limo will pull up to your mansion. Guess what he has an RPG! One of those low tech, but, very effective weapons that true American patriots face in Afghanistan and other places around the world every day. Remember, those true patriots are the low lifes that you and other spoiled rich people use to fight your wars. It just happens that an unmanned drone is flying overhead and spots this person/terrorist/patriot from 10,000 feet. Now, this drone just happens to be armed with a hellfire missle. As you pull up to your mansion, the person/terrorist/patriot takes careful aim. The controller of the drone, based at Whitman Air Force Base in Missouri, has a quandry on his hands. He would like to blow this person/terrorist/patriot to hell with his missile, but, after all the debate, name calling, and just plain nasty politics that you were a major part of in Washington, a law was passed that prohibited the killing of "Americans" like this person/terrorist/patriot on American soil. He pleads with his superior officer for the "weapons free" order, but, the officer tells him NO!!! it's against the law! Then the cameras on the drone records the "whoosh BOOM" as you, your limo, your driver, and everyone within 10 to 15 yards of your limo become a fine pink mist with chunks of flesh, metal, and "fine corenthian leather" flying in all directions. This scenario could be your future Rand. Think about it!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
It should have been a resounding YES.
Just like in the UK and other countries. We do kill our own when necessary
no contradiction, the local police are not the federal government. power not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the the states, or the people
And at the ad hominem point I stop arguing with an AC.
He is protesting something that is a complete and utter straw man. Nobody has suggested that any Americans could be targeted on american soil. He pulled it out of his ass, and has been duly chastised by both the administration AND by his own party, in the form of Lindsey Graham and John McCain beating him up publicly. Eric Holder has 'answered his question' with an unequivocal 'no', and there was no possibility that the answer would be anything else. He is trying to grab attention, and has apparently done so. Shame on him, and shame on anybody who pays attention to his ranting.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/03/07/rand-pauls-filibuster-and-targeted-killings/comment-page-1/#comment-41751 This guy is the best writer and thinker on all things Drone War related, in my opinion, check him out. Good quote from him today on Rand Paul's filibuster "More important than the theater of Rand Paul’s filibuster would be its impact (if any) on rallying the sustained interest of his colleagues to examine the full scope of America’s ten years and four months-practice of targeted killings. This will only be possible if the White House—as it has promised to do for many months—decides to more comprehensively engage with Congress, the American people, and the world about this unending Third War." also sign this petition if you want https://www.change.org/petitions/international-community-united-nations-and-united-states-congress-make-targeted-killing-internationally-accountable
Terrifying is how many people think the way AC above does. Utterly terrifying is how many of those same people are convinced that, because there are so many of them that think in such a manner, said thought process is correct, and should be enshrined in law.
Big part of the rationale behind my refusal to procreate.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Herauthon says: Just invite somebody to some embassy - and blow it.. so, that could be an option?