White House responds to Rand Paul: No authority to drone-kill Americans on US soil

[cajuncocoa]

I don't blame you. But little distinctions like this thing that Rand Paul forced out of this White House can make the difference between the president not getting away with it--like Nixon and Watergate--and the president getting away with it--like Reagan and Iran-Contra.

Keeping the populace awake and energized about something is the main way--and really the only way--to maintain a stumbling block to tyranny.

That's true...the fact that it generated any response from the White House is a victory for Rand and all who supported his filibuster yesterday.

 

[Lucille]

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articl...resident-cant-kill-americans-on-american-soil

How about just shooting them? Does he think he has that authority?

 

[rubioneocon]

I don't trust them, no matter what they say.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, no, no. They did not say that they "won't", because they've been saying that for awhile. They said that they "can't". They lack the authority to do so.

That distinction is VERY important. It's the entire reason Rand filibustered. It's important we understand it, so that others may as well.

I agree.

 

[Darguth]

My point is the same point Dick Durbin raised last night. This isn't about drones, it's about lethal force. Drones are just a tool and the answer is limited to one specific tool to cause lethal force.

Except it isn't. At least it wasn't to Rand last night. He was talking specifically about the drone program. That's why Holder's answer specifically marked them out. Not out of some underhanded way to allow fighter-bombers or cruise missiles to still be legitimate tools to use against Americans at home.

Much of the discussion is also about prevailing norms. No one suspects the Administration believes it has the authority to use a warship, or a cruise missile, or a SEAL team, etc. to target specific American individuals at home with lethal force. This is because such tools have existed significantly longer than drones and more importantly there is not a large push to start integrating them into American law enforcement, as we're seeing with drones.

I'm not arguing al-Awlaki's geographic location. My point is that he was labeled as an "enemy combatant" and was subject to be killed. If another US citizen in the US were labeled as an "enemy combatant" would that mean they are "engaged in combat"? Basically, if al-Awlaki were in the US, how would Eric Holder's answer apply to him?

And, again, I'd agree with you that in this regard the answer is still somewhat vague. We don't know exactly what is meant by "engaged in combat". Does that mean that I'm actively pointing a bazooka at you? Or does it simply mean that I'm a combatant for drawing up plans to build or finance the purchase of that bazooka?

That unfortunately remains to be seen. However, there is also historical evidence and Holder's own previous comments that this is the purview of domestic law enforcement. The specific scenarios Holder has highlighted for potential use of lethal military force (9/11 and Pearl Harbor) were both acts of active, immediate combat operations.

The previous comments combined with this letter lead me to believe that had al-Awlaki been in the United States he would have been apprehended, not droned. At least that is the policy being clarified and expressed.

 

[Deborah K]

Rand's filibuster has brought attention to the inevitability of drones flying legally over the States. It has served to put a nasty taste in the mouths of the American people where drones are concerned.

Now that it's been 'clarified' that it's unconstitutional to kill non-combative Americans in the U.S., the next steps will be in dealing with how law enforcement (local, state, and federal) can use drones against Americans to subdue us, spie on us, monitor us, and so on. Mark my words, drones will be flying over our skies in the near future by the hundreds and thousands, both private and govt. drones. Legislation is in the pike.

This just opened up a can of worms that needed to be opened up.

Check this out. http://www.uxvuniversity.com/

 

[coastie]

Just In: White House Responds to Rand Paul

Obama Has No Authority For Drone Strikes Against Americans On U.S. Soil, White House Says:

WASHINGTON -- White House press secretary Jay Carney on Thursday tried to put to rest a simmering debate over President Barack Obama's drone policy, stating in clear terms that the president doesn't have the legal authority to, hypothetically, order drone strikes on Americans on U.S. soil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/obama-drone-strikes_n_2830174.html

well, I'll be damned...

 

[tsai3904]

The previous comments combined with this letter lead me to believe that had al-Awlaki been in the United States he would have been apprehended, not droned. At least that is the policy being clarified and expressed.

The Administration has already stated that they don't use drones unless apprehension is not feasible. You would think that apprehension is always feasible in the US if there is no imminent threat which would leave Rand's question moot.

 

[Darguth]

How about just shooting them? Does he think he has that authority?

I think comments like these are now being deliberately obtuse, and unfortunately lend credence to McCain's claims of ridiculousness and paranoia.

If you're expecting or want a comprehensive list--with nothing omitted for the sake of specificity and brevity--of what tools the Administration doesn't have the authority to kill you with, then I think you're missing the entire point of what's going on.

 

[AngryCanadian]

Not Very Trust worthy

He didn't even answer Rand Paul questions he just said No.

 

[rubioneocon]

Well drones do play into the matter of surveillance so they can still be used against American citizens in non-lethal force ways . . . not good.

 

[UpperDecker]

"Not engaged in combat" is not good enough. Their qualifications for combatants overseas is shady enough, I am sure they would use the same here.

 

[tsai3904]

I think comments like these are now being deliberately obtuse, and unfortunately lend credence to McCain's claims of ridiculousness and paranoia.

If you're expecting or want a comprehensive list--with nothing omitted for the sake of specificity and brevity--of what tools the Administration doesn't have the authority to kill you with, then I think you're missing the entire point of what's going on.

The point is targeted killing, not specifically drones. I know Rand's specific questions were about drones and its great that we have an answer to that but in the bigger picture of things, the practice of targeted killings is the problem. All of it could have been resolved if the question Eric Holder answered had "lethal force" in place of "weaponized drones". You don't need to have a comprehensive list.

 

[Darguth]

The Administration has already stated that they don't use drones unless apprehension is not feasible. You would think that apprehension is always feasible in the US if there is no imminent threat which would leave Rand's question moot.

I don't accept your premise in the slightest. Apprehension is not always feasible in the US--as it was described by the Administration--any more than it is always feasible abroad.

The feasibility of capturing a man holed up in a compound in a hostile region of Yemen is no more or less feasible to catch than say a man holed up in a secure compound in the United States with a huge stockpile of supplies.

Both are simply a matter of risk and cost. Feasibility is an extremely loose term in either scenario. I don't think Rand's question was moot at all.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

"Not engaged in combat" is not good enough. Their qualifications for combatants overseas is shady enough, I am sure they would use the same here.

Ain't that the truth.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

"Not engaged in combat" is not good enough. Their qualifications for combatants overseas is shady enough, I am sure they would use the same here.

Not to mention their skewed understanding of what constitutes an imminent threat. [immediate vs. future]

 

[ZENemy]

LOL, yea, cause Obama always follows the rules.

 

[Darguth]

The point is targeted killing, not specifically drones. I know Rand's specific questions were about drones and its great that we have an answer to that but in the bigger picture of things, the practice of targeted killings is the problem. All of it could have been resolved if the question Eric Holder answered had "lethal force" in place of "weaponized drones". You don't need to have a comprehensive list.

That's fine and dandy, but that's not what Rand asked, actually. He spent 13 hours talking about drones. I don't find it sinister that the answer we received mentioned drones instead of a generic "lethal force" phrasing.

 

[acptulsa]

I don't accept your premise in the slightest. Apprehension is not always feasible in the US--as it was described by the Administration--any more than it is always feasible abroad.

The feasibility of capturing a man holed up in a compound in a hostile region of Yemen is no more or less feasible to catch than say a man holed up in a secure compound in the United States with a huge stockpile of supplies.

Both are simply a matter of risk and cost. Feasibility is an extremely loose term in either scenario. I don't think Rand's question was moot at all.

Of course, Rand admitted that armed people are liable to be on the receiving end of deadly force. And, you know, I don't think whether the 'prime suspect' is one of the ones actively defending the compound or not really matters much to a Hellfire Missile...

 

[Anti Federalist]

This is not an assault!