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."

Comments

Sadly, yes.

[mmell]

(n/t)

citizenship is irrelevant

[erikkemperman]

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.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to keep the war going without terrorists. Sounds like the plan is working well.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[aralin]

International Law, the thing that only applies to you if you are not American.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[aralin]

Oh, it absolutely should be pointed out. Everything possible should be done about bringing light to drone strikes and every attempt made at ending it.

You should not be naive though, about what and how can end it. US government is the only one who can end the program. Saying it is amoral does not matter to US government. Saying it creates more terrorists does not matter to the US government. Collateral damage does not matter to the US government. The only thing that could potentially matter to them is the US citizenship. Everything else falls into the totally justifiable grey area.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[Chrisq]

That won't happen. When it starts happening the US military will go in and sort out the place no matter where that is

You mean you'd do what you are telling Putin he should not do in Ukraine?

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[NettiWelho]

typically inside sovereign nations not at war with the US In the case of Yemen, it's with the permission, and sometimes the assistance, of the host government, which doesn't control that area where the drones are used. In Pakistan there appears to be at least tacit permission. In Afghanistan, well, there's a war on.

In all cases, the law in the US (AUMF and others) allows it.

Claiming lawful action under German or puppet regime law didn't help the nazis, they got hung anyway. The US set the precedent on this one pretty solid.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[Sique]

Actually, it's spelled with a K. A cyrillic K. No matter if ukrainian or russian. Or it is spelled with a Q, if you like the crimean tatar writing of Qirim (the actual spelling has the i without dots, but Slashdot doesn't use UTF).

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[Charliemopps]

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.

Well, I don't want to defend the drone war. I don't think we should be involved in this at all. But to call this anything but war is a disservice to everyone involved. This is what war looks like. It IS murder. You can't be on an offensive military footing and not commit murder. Remember the children killed by hellfire missiles while attending a funeral the next time your congressman starts talking about defending this country. We voted to allow this. We've voted for Republicans and Democrats time and time again. They will keep doing this until we either throw them out of office or we make it clear they can't win elections anymore if they keep using war as a pretext to scare us into voting for them.

This is our fault. We need to take responsibility and stop blaming our inability to vote outside party lines on some mythical 1% or military industrial complex. If you don't like war, stop voting for the party of war. It's the one with D or R after the names on the ballot.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[NettiWelho]

Just ou of curiosity, how is using a drone to attack an individual target somehow illegal, where carpet-bombing with a B-52 is not illegal? Or is your contention that any use of force against al-Qaeda illegal?

Whats it again with the legality? What the Nazis did was perfectly legal under German law at the time - They were killed for what they did anyway.

If the target is actually an hostile combatant, then sure whatever, drop an anvil on the guy. But if you double tap a completely unrelated wedding party and then the rescuers, how is what US doing any different from what the Nazis and the Soviets were doing? If you willingly murder defenseless civilians and claim legal right to kill enemies of the state per law(and anyone else getting in the way, just to be sure), you deserve death penalty for war crimes, regardless whetever your victims official 'crime' was having a jewish mother or uploading US critical youtube videos.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[whistlingtony]

Jimmy Carter was amazing. The problem wasn't Carfter. It's You. We will always be at war as long as people like you are around. Look at us. Osama Bin Laden WON. He didn't pay for shit. He got exactly what he wanted. We went crazy, invaded two countries, clamped down on our own citizens, and spent a small mountain of money for nothing. To boot, we're LOSING in Afghanistan. We've accomplished NOTHING over there.

Oh yeah, we showed them.... Meanwhile, you pooh pooh one of the most honest presidents we've ever had.

Punishing people doesn't change behavior. We crack down on crime, hasn't changed shit. We crack down on drugs, hasn't changed shit. We punish the people that attack us, yet they're going to attack us again.

Lately I've been reading books on how to raise a child. (Yay!). Look up Magda Gerber. Anyway, one of the main ideas is that punishing a child doesn't work, because they don't have the logical equipment to equate action with reaction. Also, they WANT you to like them. The best way to train a child is to reward good behavior and give no special attention to the bad. It seems a decent way to run the world too. Anyway, I digress. You're a fool and your attitude is what's dangerous to the world.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[anagama]

Add to that the fact that the GP is apparently unaware that we are still in Afghanistan. Or that Iraq ending was more about Obama's failure to extend it by getting an extension to the Status of Forces Agreement than anything else.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[BoberFett]

Eh, I've been voting for non-interventionist Libertarians since I could vote. And every time I get mocked every time because "a third party candidate can't win". Well no shit.

I'd love to see the Libertarians, the Greens, hell even the Socialist Party start to see more representation in government. At least we'd loosen the stranglehold those scumbag Ds and Rs have.

Re:citizenship is irrelevant

[anagama]

Drone is nothing more then a boogy man to detract from the real issue becasue cowards don't want to be seen as arguing against military personal, especially pilots, so they use drones to scare people.

I blame those who give the orders and those who carry out the orders. And I especially despise the wimps in our Chair Force for risking nothing more than a fender bender in doing their evil deeds.

That said, although I didn't vote for Obama either time, if you can't admit that he suckered all the people wanting peace, and co-opted all the candidates who would have actually delivered, you are too deluded to have a rational discussion.

Re:His concern is touching

[joelholdsworth]

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.

And you don't care about people in the uterus? If not, then why not?

Re:His concern is touching

[Vermonter]

If Rand Paul wanted a higher office, he would play the game like all the other members of congress. Enough people don't even pay attention to what their congressmen do that your best bet to move up is to play the game and be valuable to your party, so that they financially back you and prop you up.

Wait..

[Charliemopps]

Wait a minute... did a senator just object to a judicial nomination for an actually valid reason?

Re:Wait..

[grasshoppa]

Well, I think it might be more accurate to say that he *gave* a valid reason, but I hardly expect that was his primary motivation.

Still, the enemy of my enemy and all that..

Re:Wait..

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling a libertarian an "extreme right" shows that you have no concept of who the "extreme right" really are. Obama is more of a right winger than your average libertarian.

Hidden

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

Re:Where's the ambiguity?

[Tridus]

Fun fact - there's only two "viable" parties because the voters believe that and go along with it.

You want things to change? Stop voting for the same BS while complaining that you "don't have a choice."

Even a stopped clock is right...

[amosh]

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!

Re:Lets start with paul first

[phlinn]

The truth is rather less scary than the huffingtonpost or your initial comment make it seem. Among other things, she went along voluntarily, no force involved, and considered something similar to hazing. She was not forced to do drugs, and wasn't abducted against her will.