Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Starts New Drone War In Congress
SonicSpike (242293) writes with news that the ACLU and Rand Paul both think every Senator should read David Barron's legal memos justifying the use of drones against an American citizen before he is confirmed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. From the article: "Paul, the junior Republican senator from Kentucky, has informed Reid he will object to David Barron's nomination to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals unless the Justice Department makes public the memos he authored justifying the killing of an American citizen in Yemen. The American Civil Liberties Union supports Paul's objection, giving some Democratic lawmakers extra incentive to support a delay to Barron's nomination, which could come to the floor in the next two weeks. Barron, formerly a lawyer in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, penned at least one secret legal memo approving the Sept. 2011 drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric whom intelligence officials accused of planning terrorist attacks against the United States."
Did any senators survive?
(n/t)
The way drones are currently employed in extrajudicial killing (a.k.a. murder), typically inside sovereign nations not at war with the US, is just as illegal when it targets US citizen as it is when it targets anybody else.
Not to mention the vast majority of drone victims who are not even suspected of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is a pretty reliable method of creating new terrorists.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
It's so nice to see a Republican actually care about someone who does not reside in a uterus, provided they have a valid US passport.
It's not the "war on terrorism" anymore.
Instead, it is the "race against terrorism"
(to be the first to use drones against an American citizen.)
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
'supplying' 'providing' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLO3NmGJuHg WMD on credit cabal tentacles
I seriously don't understand what Congressmen have to gain by subverting the Constitution with no-trial executions. What kind of fucked up lobbyists are behind this? And if there are none, then we, the voters, are seriously stupid for continuing to vote in the wrong representatives.
Wait a minute... did a senator just object to a judicial nomination for an actually valid reason?
It would be an interesting exercise to imagine what would happen if the Russians, Iranians or North Koreans started to perform 'extra-judicial' killings within the borders of the US. Would the American President, Congress or Public accept this?
Remember drones are pretty cheap technology, almost any country can afford those.
Change the law if you don't like it (at least he can)! Don't hold the judicial system hostage. Do your job!
I'm sorry but the Supreme Court should rule there is no such thing as a secret law or secret interpretation of a law.
While details of any particular case could be secret, of course, the law itself cannot be. To suggest otherwise should be considered treason against freedom itself.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Now, I will be the last person who believes that Rand Paul is doing something for any reason other than his own advancement and publicity, but... I've gotta say... This is actually a legitimate and valid reason for holding up a confirmation hearing. The guy being confirmed has some controversial viewpoints about American law? That's directly relevant to whether or not he should be on the bench. I assumed this was more stupid Republican hostage-taking, but it's actually relevant. Go stopped clocks!
The man abducted a woman and was forcing drugs on her. Likewise, he has been caught multiple times plagiarizing in politics and school. It is time for him to be a man and be honest about himself.
Rand paul is a true piece of white trash.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Someone please explain to me why I keep hearing about people talk about the legality of using drones here. Surely if you substitute a more general term such as "weapon" or "deadly force" all the legal issues are identical, aren't they? I can't believe people are talking about the constitutional limits laid down in the late 1700s and how they particularly apply to a certain fad-tech du jour. None of this mattered 15 years ago, when this sort of stuff was still done using a pilot in the aircraft? None of this will matter in 50 years when it's nanobots? Bullshit. Leave the fucking "drone" word out of it; it is an irrelevancy.
(OFF-TOPIC: I was reading the Dwarf Fortress subreddit and someone mentioned "baguettes," in the context of jewelry cuts (as opposed to bread). I clicked through to an article about diamonds cuts. Now on Slashdot I'm seeing ads for diamond rings. When my girlfriend sees our shared computer serving her this... *sigh* Time to clear the cookies. ("I don't know, honey. I guess you just need to log in again. Sometimes these 'remember me' settings just don't really work.") If anyone ever wonders why ad revenue keeps slipping, this kind of thing is why users see ads as something they need to actively defend against.)
If anybody bothered to actually listen to what Rand said about his drone policy during his filibuster, its the same policy Obama has.
He's nothing but a grandstanding hypocrite.
but not good in deterring Putin from taking Ukraine. Reading stuff at http://globalsecurity.org/ it suggests Estonia is vulnerable as well. Geez, this country's security strategy has got to be the worst of all times.
mfwright@batnet.com
These are missiles fired from aircraft.
Whether the pilot is in a cubicle in Arizona or in the cockpit of the aircraft is absolutely immaterial.
We kill terrorists. We cant (rationally ahem: 'war on drugs') declare war against something unless it is a civil body politic with a government.
No one, except true pacifists, is always against the US killing terrorists...so that means it's a question of *when* to use lethal force
In all military action there is a threat of collateral killing.
Nothing new to see here...except GOP trolls trying anything they can to make Obama look bad.
Test these criticisms for logical consistency...they fail...a missile is a missile whether a drone or piloted craft shot it.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Rand Paul is a yes-man who will say anything to get elected.
He plagiarized his speeches...not just copying...but his *whole ideology* is just a pastiche of calculated "outsider" positions that appeal to the lizard brain of certain conservatives.
Ron Paul & Rand Paul are dupes who can be consistently relied upon to set their hair on fire whenever the Bush/Illuminati need to distract white male voters.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I've often thought that a lot of the problem with "the government is killing American citizens" is actually a problem with citizenship, not with killing Americans. Generally these American citizens are the children of non-citizens who only spent a limited amount of time in the USA and much of their time they spent growing up was in a society radically different from the US.
Maybe the solution to "killing American citizens" is to not let these people become citizens in the first place? (The first thing that comes to mind is forcing them to choose a country at age 21 if they have dual citizenship, but I'm sure someone could poke holes in that idea.)
It's almost like he wants to get re-elected. Like maybe most people are against something so he decided to be against it too. What a concept.
You know what? They should start an actual drone war in congress. Fly some around and try to blow each other up. Last drone standing wins. That'd be more productive than the BS they do on a daily basis.
he just drones on and on and on and on....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Since the title of this article was so obviously a hook, I'll go ahead and bite.
"Begun, the drone wars have"
Sorry chump, there is nothing in the US Constitution that authorizes the US Government or any agency of it to play God by taking someone's life without first putting any person anywhere on trial for a crime in front of a jury and once declared guilty, they can then be executed by whatever means allowed by the law. Anything less than that is unAmerican and basically the antithesis of what America is supposed to stand for and a primary reason for what the American Revolution was fought for.
The hypocrisy also hit me when the White House complained about the botched execution of a convicted murderer. When they said that, I could only wonder if they thought targeted drone strikes without trial more humane?
I'm pretty sure your mom regrets all those drugs she did while she was carrying you.
you laid out a standard here:
anything less than what you describe is "unAmerican"
so if we apply your standard consistently, no war or US military action has EVER been up to your standards!
am I wrong? then tell me what war/military action WAS up to your standards! if you give an example it will either be a "declared" war or not...either way, you have to explain why US governmnet killing in warfare is different for declared and non-declared 'war'
so let's hear it you know it all...let's apply your standard...it will fail b/c you are either a pacifist or it's a question of *when* to use lethal force...that's it
Thank you Dave Raggett
No.
He said the President's policy wrong; but his policy is the correct policy.
He was hoping nobody would notice that his policy was actually the same as the President's.
It seems like you are one of the many people who missed it as well.
Yup, drones are just awful. Gone are the happy days when we could send a fleet of heavy bombers and exterminate over 100,000 people in order to get at a few enemies. It is like the anti gun crowd and the old remark about it being awful that a criminal was gunned down and the other guy asks if it would have been better if a fork was used instead of a gun.
Do you often refer to yourself in the third person? They make medication that can help with that, you know. See a doctor. Please.
you're just another GOP-troll...your beliefs are nonsense and you need to change or stop posting on /....you ignored this, the most **crucial** part of my comment, because it proves your ideology is bullshit:
so, you say "WWII"...thats not a complete answer...you have to be *consistent*
what about non-state actors? like...idk...terrorists who do not claim any affiliation with a military of a nation-state?
do we just let them do whatever they want?
are you saying the US military cannot kill unless it is a person of a regular military of a nation-state the US Congress has officially declared war upon?
IF SO HOW THE FSCK DO WE BATTLE NON-STATE ACTORS LIKE TERRORISTS
You are afraid of this question...in your rules the US military could not take action against terrorists that could be lethal
Thank you Dave Raggett
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) on Tuesday rejected a White House offer to let senators read a federal court nominee's memo authorizing a drone strike on a U.S. citizen, calling anything short of a full public release "inadequate."
Paul is threatening to block the federal appeals court nomination of David Barron, who wrote a Justice Department memo justifying a drone strike against alleged al Qaeda commander Anwar al-Awlaki, until that memo is released. Last month the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the government to release the document.
"A federal court has ordered the public release of a redacted legal memo authored by Barron and I believe that anything short of that is inadequate," Paul said in a statement released Tuesday. "I will continue to oppose this nomination until the document is released."
Barron's nomination has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's not clear whether Paul will be able to stop Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) from bringing Barron's nomination to a full Senate floor vote.
President Barack Obama's administration had offered earlier Tuesday to let senators read the memo before they vote on Barron's nomination. But that offer has mollified neither Paul nor the American Civil Liberties Union, which wants senators to be able to review any and all of the memos Barron may have written justifying the targeted killing program -- not just the memo the 2nd Circuit publicly ordered to be released. (Part of the 2nd Circuit's order was kept under seal, so it may have ordered the release of additional Barron memos.)
Barron served as the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010. The office's legal memos, underlying the targeted killing program, have been the subject of several contentious legal battles over whether they will be publicly released.
SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Libertas in infinitum
With a formal exam of others posting here given in a professional psychiatric environs? No?? Then, stfu.
Two separate issues all together; can we kill people inside the borders of another country we are not at war with and can the government kill US citizens. My stance on the second issue is that at some point, US citizen or not, your actions can and should be able to make you an enemy combatant in a war. I'm no expert, but I do believe in a traditional war that is the case and always has been. In this case, the war on terrorism, the issue is that we are not at war with a country but with a dispersed enemy that resides in counties like Yemen that either don't have the power to control terrorists or don't want to no matter how much money we through at them. So, we are left with having to fight terrorists the best we can remotely inside the borders of countries that don't want us there. But since this is not a traditional war, perhaps someone (judge perhaps) should provide over site for actions like these. I think that most people, regardless of the political party they are in, would do the same thing provided the same circumstances and same intel. No politician and no political party, wants another 9/11, especially if they are the ones responsible at that time. I find it very hard to believe that the decision to kill a US citizen within another country would have been made any different by any other politician had they actually been required to make that decision at that time with the intel provided knowing their ass was on the line for any terrorist act that kills Americans. I love how all of you people are suddenly experts on what is really going on in the world from the seat of your couches. The decision to kill Anwar was not a political decision; the decision to make a public spectical of the people who had to make that hard decision is completely political. Rand Paul will surely get droves of idiots all wound up over this.