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?'"
There is no lack of definition: "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 offense 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." It's right there. It's a crime against the constitution for the government to kill a US Citizen, on US Soil, without due process.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is an error I see repeated all the time. Nowhere does it say "citizen" in that statement. The Constitution pertains to everyone, including illegal immigrants, foreign fighters that have infiltrated the border, fishermen offshore but within territorial waters, tourists, everyone. The only place in the Constitution where citizenship is mentioned is in qualifications to hold office. Sorry, maybe I'm just being picky but I think it's an important point.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Since he's a senator, you could say the entire state is his district.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The Insurrection Act (w/ 2006 amendments) however does in fact authorize use of military force in certain circumstances:
"(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
Can you cite where Obama says targeted killings count as due process? It was my understanding that the stance of the White House considers drone strikes as military actions that don't require due process.
It's a fake debate using FUD to take the eyes off the fact that the republicans have lied and moved the goal post on the economy and budget issues.
Would that be the part about Obama's administration not tabling any budgets for the past oh what is it now? 5 or 6 years, or the fact that they're trying to claim that a 2% cut is the end of the world.
It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States, "Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul's question about whether Obama "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial."
That doesn't get much clearer does it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can you cite where Obama says targeted killings count as due process?
You can read a discussion right here. Granted, not Obama personally, but presumably Attorney General Eric Holder voices Obama's position
It was my understanding that the stance of the White House considers drone strikes as military actions that don't require due process.
Not so. Well, I think it is their position that they got 20 good reasons and this is just one of them:
"'Due process' and 'judicial process' are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security." Holder said. "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process."
If you think Rand Paul is toeing the party line on this, you're smoking something funny.
The Obama administration’s apparent belief that due process can be satisfied in secret inside the executive branch is...a travesty of the very notion of due process. And to borrow a phrase from Justice Robert Jackson, it will now lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any administration that needs it.
Another interesting quote reveals a fact of which I was unaware:
Although the white paper doesn’t say so, Awlaki even tried to get a hearing before he was killed. His father asked a federal court to find that he wasn’t a terrorist. But the court never heard his claim, because the Obama administration persuaded it not to consider the case.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not who you were talking to, but Libya, Mali, and Yemen come to mind.
But hey, those aren't big, flashy wars, so the people being murdered there don't count.
Which bankers? They're not on Wall Street.
PBS disagrees.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Right, then. Here's a recent photo for you that includes (a) the beautiful African nation of Mali, (b) a USAF C-17 Globemaster and (c) a pair of boots worn by an American serviceman. You'll note that both his feet are firmly planted on the ground: http://wapo.st/ZrQ8wK
Voter fraud is so insignificant in America that even if everyone who did it in all the US were in the same district, they couldn't change the outcome.
The GOP has manipulated a minor problem into an all-out assault on minorities and, while gerrymandering has been abused historically by both sides, their last round of redistricting was abominable.
If anyone is conducting or planning to conduct voter fraud on a grand scale, it's the RightWingNuts. Time and demographics are against them and the only things that can save their brand is either blatant cheating or a return to sanity. I'm not holding my breath for the latter.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The Washington State gubernatorial election of 2004 was invalidated by fraud. During the post election legal maneuvers the Judge "noted that there was evidence that 1,678 votes had been illegally cast throughout the state." Additionally it is known that there were 3,500 more counted ballots in King county than there were registered voters. In the end the Judge concluded that he was unable to know how those illegal ballots were cast so he decided to do nothing. The election was settled by a difference of 133 votes. It's not known how the fraud effected the election, but the known fraud exceeded the margin of victory.
There were ongoing military operations in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Seriously, the GP has a point. Obama didn't start three wars. All these actions (save Libya) are just an extension of the Bush politices.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
This plane is delivery military aid. If you include military aid as part of war (which is a valid point of view), then the US is at war with half the world.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
It's been 20+ years since I took the course in Constitutional law (elective - I was an engineering major), so I can't cite the exact SCotUS case which established it. But U.S. Constitutional protections are limited to U.S. territory. That's why Bush sent prisoners to Guantanamo - it's Cuban territory, not U.S. The U.S. just has a perpetual lease on it (we pay Cuba about $4000/yr for it, though Castro felt the treaty was invalid and refused to cash the checks). That freed the administration from pesky things like the Constitution when it came to dealing with the prisoners. The SCotUS eventually decided the lease effectively made it U.S. territory and thus the prisoners had Constitutional rights, but both administrations seem to be ignoring that decision.
So the key phrase is actually "on American soil." Foreigners visiting the U.S. also gain Constitutional protection while they're in the U.S. -- even illegal immigrants, which is what the whole flap about the law passed in Arizona was about. The concept of a drone strike taking out someone within the U.S. appears to violate the Due Process clause because it's difficult to think of a situation involving a drone where there's an immediate threat to life thus warranting the use of deadly force. To use a drone to kill someone, you pretty much have to have decided to execute the person without apprehending him, and thus without having put him on trial. Very different from a cop who kills a suspect who points a gun at him.
People are just adding the "killing Americans" part to it to generate a stronger reaction. If you just say "killing people on American soil", some people who think terrorists shouldn't have Constitutional rights will say "yeah, I can see that being justified some time." Even though they're wrong, it dilutes opposition and distracts from the central issue. So they're narrowing it down to the one case pretty much the entire public will have a problem with - killing Americans on American soil.
Outside the U.S., the Constitution doesn't apply, and the government is free (legally) to kill people left and right (morally is another question). Killing U.S. citizens abroad seems to be kinda iffy, but as I understand the legal precedent there's no Constitutional restriction against the government doing it especially during a state of war.