posted March 06, 2013 09:05 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 06, 2013 09:20 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 07, 2013 12:01 AM            

this all will, or should, lead to an actual code that says what is proper use of drones and what isn't. that's a good thing. and if the code is dreadful, it can be changed. IF people stay on the case.

drones are a frightening, inhuman new development in military action. but if you take out the mechanical aspect and look at history, other presidents have used military force against citizens on american soil, and they are among our most cherished heroes...washington and lincoln left no holds barred in order to bring order to the union. i don't approve of those actions either, for the record, but in the framework of govt and leadership they were acceptable to most people, and i doubt either of you sees the similarity...or do you?

posted March 07, 2013 01:43 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted March 07, 2013 05:32 PM            

quote:

---

Attorney General Eric Holder has responded to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's question about whether the federal government can legally use a drone strike against an American citizen on U.S. soil if the person is "not engaged in combat":

---

So, now will be be hair splitting in defining "combat" ala Clintons fancy foot work ?

posted March 18, 2013 07:26 PM            

As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/05/173572444/president-could-in-theory-order-drone-strike-inside-u-s-holder-says

In response to the combat question:

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no," the three-sentence letter stated.

In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash, Paul said he was satisfied with the response. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/07/obama-administration-responds-to-paul-on-drones/

posted March 18, 2013 08:03 PM            

You forgot to put the key sentence in Holder's letter in bold:

It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.

"Possible," "necessary," and "appropriate," he said. Magic words that make drone strikes against Americans sound almost legal.

posted March 18, 2013 08:25 PM            

i also wonder, if 9/11 had been interecepted as we have reason to believe it coulda/shoulda been, would you be screaming unconstitutional about it?

have ANY of the attempts made in obama's term been dealt with summarily? no, they have been intercepted and dealt with according to law, though detractors like to say some of those apprehensions were "just accidents" they were successful all the same.

meanwhile the heavyhanded police who thought they had the right to thrash occupiers and lie about it are getting their payback IN THE COURTS too.

posted March 19, 2013 08:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
faith why is it that you persist in ignoring the HYPOTHETICAL nature of the question paul asked, which explains the hypothetical nature of the answer? when he asked a well-defined question he got a more definite answer.

---

Do you have a copy of Rand's question, to prove that it was hypothetical? I don't see why he would bother asking a question without teeth. Like, "Hey Holder, let's play pretend. Do you want to pretend drone kill people?" Makes no sense.

Holder used the word "hypothetical" and curiously, for many people, that word has nullified the terrifying import of the rest of what he was saying.

"Hypothetically we could assume the power to kill anyone we want, for our reasons."

It's bewildering to me, that anyone is okay with that!

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
i also wonder, if 9/11 had been interecepted as we have reason to believe it coulda/shoulda been, would you be screaming unconstitutional about it?

---

I didn't scream nor did I say anything about the Constitution. These kinds of remarks sully our fledgling rapport.

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
have ANY of the attempts made in obama's term been dealt with summarily? no, they have been intercepted and dealt with according to law, though detractors like to say some of those apprehensions were "just accidents" they were successful all the same.

---

Are you talking about the terror plots that the FBI is continually coking up, lulling impressionable, weak young men into their web, brainwashing them into readiness to commit crimes, and then pronouncing them would-be terrorists?

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
funny coincidence that CPAC was so close behind the famous filibuster? or not?

---

As I have said several times, I don't care about Rand's opportunism dovetailing with his quest to get a better answer from Holder; I just don't care. Rand did the right thing. Should he have done the wrong thing out of fear of being branded an opportunist?

posted March 19, 2013 08:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Your sentence has the words "extraordinary circumstance." That's a pretty significant qualifier.

---

It's just a phrase! Then, all the President and his CIA death squads have to do is make a pronouncement about this being an "extraordinary circumstance" or pronounce someone an "imminent threat" (and imminent doesn't have to mean imminent, that's how lax the definitions are) and then they can send people on their way to the Other Side.

posted March 19, 2013 09:46 AM            

Your sensitivities, I would say, aren't normal. On 9/11 terrorists took over planes making the planes into missiles laden with innocent American citizens. You're saying that if the Presidents office at the time had shot those planes out of the sky, and potentially lessened the damage of those missiles that they would have been acting in a manner inconsistent with their duties, and which would have otherwise been illegal. I've chosen this example as a perfect illustration of the flaw in your logic. We know what happened on 9/11. We know the damage that occurred. You're saying that a President trying to avert that damage would be and should be in trouble with the American people, that the President's duties should now be divorced from the charge of defending the United States. Nothing about it should be bewildering to you at all.

And it's not killing "anyone at all for our reasons." That's not what Holder said. "Anyone" is a person involved in an attack, and "our reasons" are the defense of the United States. You're trying to relieve the definition from those standards, but those are the qualifiers.

quote:

---

Then, all the President and his CIA death squads have to do is make a pronouncement about this being an "extraordinary circumstance" or pronounce someone an "imminent threat" (and imminent doesn't have to mean imminent, that's how lax the definitions are) and then they can send people on their way to the Other Side.

This is Pandora's box you want opened.

---

You don't seem to understand politics. Fundamentally, why would a politician want to both suffer unpopularity (the death knell for any politician), or commit a crime against the Constitution (which they've been sworn to defend)? You're imagining an impulse not present in most politicians, and extrapolating that out into a belief that it's going to lead to some sort of tyranny. You don't seem to understand that there's always a different political opportunist waiting in the wings to "restore the honor" to the office of the perceived wrongdoer. What you believe amounts to paranoia.

posted March 19, 2013 11:18 AM            

I also approve(d) of the filibuster and the pibliciyy it garnered the questions around droning, i am just expressing my feeling that it was in response to aanufactured provocstion, ie whether intentionally or .oy rand posed his original questions on such a way as to field a hypothetical answer. I czn see that there might conceivably be a circumstance where their use might prevent serious carnage...

And the supposed quote in the title of thisthread is a gross exaggeration...

I keep saying i appreciate the vslue of the pauls in congress but they would never get into the white house nor would they be able, if they did, to do anything much about our overweening military and spending. So i believe thry either don't really want the oval office, or they are not as bright as they think...

posted March 19, 2013 11:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Your sensitivities, I would say, aren't normal.

---

StandwithRand was the #1 Tweet, globally, the day he filibustered. I'm "abnormal" for having these concerns?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You're saying that if the Presidents office at the time had shot those planes out of the sky, and potentially lessened the damage of those missiles that they would have been acting in a manner inconsistent with their duties, and which would have otherwise been illegal.

---

I said no such thing. And Holder said, after the filibuster, that the President cannot order a drone attack on a US citizen on US soil, so if YOU have a problem with that restriction, take it up with him!

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I've chosen this example as a perfect illustration of the flaw in your logic.

---

Self-flattery...

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
We know what happened on 9/11.

---

posted March 19, 2013 12:01 PM            

Good point, Kat. In fact, if I were to respond to Faith more than I do below I might be inclined to pose the question of what a Ron Paul would do as President in the face of a 9/11 copycat attack where he has time to sacrifice few for the benefit of many. It's difficult to imagine that any President would turn their back on defending the country. I also agree that the title of this thread is ridiculously overstated.

@ Faith
There. There's an argument equal to the one you've just presented.