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

[Acala]

No matter WHAT he said, he couldn't be trusted. BUT Rand drew a line in the sand and the mighty executive wouldn't cross it. It was a win for limited government.

 

[tsai3904]

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.

Ok I think you misunderstood my point from the last comment. I was trying to say that the Administration always tries to apprehend first. If that is not feasible, then they'll consider a drone strike. You basically said that you think the Administration would apprehend Al-Awlaki and I agree with that because their policy is first apprehension.

I guess what I was trying to ask is that what if apprehension of Al-Awlaki was not feasible in the US? Would the President still have the legal authority to kill him if he didn't pose an imminent threat (in the Rand Paul sense where he's holding a grenade launcher)?

 

[Anti Federalist]

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

Someone could be surveying the dead, smoking, phosphorus burned bodies scattered around the smoking crater that was once their home and government will tell say, "Oh that? That was...sunspots".

 

[Anti Federalist]

No matter WHAT he said, he couldn't be trusted. BUT Rand drew a line in the sand and the mighty executive wouldn't cross it. It was a win for limited government.

Agreed, and a hearty Huzzah for Rand.

 

[jllundqu]

This is not an assault!

I took a shit in this guys toilet then made his house my battalion HQ

 

[SilentBull]

It doesn't matter what they said. Rand just forced the assholes to respond and admit they don't have the authority to do whatever they want. Win!

 

[Lucille]

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.

And here I thought it was about preserving our 5th amendment right to due process. Stupid, silly me. Little did I know all this was really about what tools the executive branch can and can't use to execute U.S. citizens after it plays judge and jury.

Good to know.

 

[Darguth]

I guess what I was trying to ask is that what if apprehension of Al-Awlaki was not feasible in the US? Would the President still have the legal authority to kill him if he didn't pose an imminent threat (in the Rand Paul sense where he's holding a grenade launcher)?

And I think we got our answer: No.

If al-Awlaki was in the United States, was not engaged in combat, and yet somehow it was still not feasible to apprehend him then the Administration lacks the authority to kill him.

For the sake of hypothetical let's say that a terrorist suspect (American citizen) wasn't engaged in combat but was rather just evading authorities so well that he couldn't be caught by boots on the ground, but *could* be spotted and targeted with a drone, the Administration is saying that they can't just kill him just because it's easier. At least on American soil.

It's a fine line, I'll grant you, but I think this is still a big win. It might not change much practically (it was likely never going to anyway) but this got a lot of people talking across-the-aisle about our "War Without End or Borders" philosophy and shoved a leading liberty politicians into the national spotlight.

That's a win. A big win.

 

[tsai3904]

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.

Rand mentioned "lethal force" 82 times last night. I know his specific questions were about drones but Rand is also worried about lethal force. Look all I'm saying is that it's great the White House responded but this doesn't settle everything. It's a great victory but the battle is not over.

Rand wrote Brennan three letters. These were his first questions in the first two letters:

Do you agree with the argument put forth on numerous occasions by the Executive Branch that it is legal to order the killing of American citizens and that it is not compelled to explain its reasoning in reaching this conclusion?

Do you believe that the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil? What about the use of lethal force against a non-U.S. person on U.S. soil?

Those are questions that still need to be answered.

 

[Darguth]

And here I thought it was about preserving our 5th amendment right to due process. Stupid, silly me. Little did I know all this was really about what tools the executive branch can and can't use to execute U.S. citizens after it plays judge and jury.

Good to know.

Yeah, you're just being deliberately obtuse. This was still about the 5th Amendment and due process. You're the one making this about the tools, not me. Please return under your bridge.

 

[libertygrl]

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

I'm with you. Holder's a lawyer afterall. Watch the wording carefully.

 

[Lucille]

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 would have been good enough for me.

 

[tsai3904]

And I think we got our answer: No.

If al-Awlaki was in the United States, was not engaged in combat, and yet somehow it was still not feasible to apprehend him then the Administration lacks the authority to kill him.

See that's where I disagree. I don't think we have a clear answer on al-Awlaki. The Administration used the reasoning that he was an "enemy combatant" and ordered him killed. My question is, which hasn't been answered, is does the Administration believe that an "enemy combatant" is "engaged in combat"? If they believe so, then if they declared al-Awlaki an "enemy combatant" then they believe they can kill him in the US if apprehension is not feasible.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

"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.

Very true
+rep

"The president has not and would not use drone strkes against Americans citzines on American soil," Carney said. "The legal authorities that exist to use lethal force are bound by, constrained by, the law and the Constitution. The issue here isn't the technology .... Whether it's a drone strike or a gun shot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way."

Was it Holder or Biden that commented recently that they didn't need drones for that in the US because the police can take care of problems...

DAMN RIGHT! - Those Hellfires cost 25K each! We are in a recession here! USA, USA, USA! - F' YEAH!

Why waste 25K when they can just use the drone to find and track um, then tell the SWAT team where to set up the ambush... Dorner style! Or maybe I should say Bonnie and Clyde style...



-t

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Someone could be surveying the dead, smoking, phosphorus burned bodies scattered around the smoking crater that was once their home and government will tell say, "Oh that? That was...sunspots".

Did you see the Granny terrrists? After all was said and done the 74 year old woman only had to say this, "Don't you guys have anything better to do?"

 

[Darguth]

See that's where I disagree. I don't think we have a clear answer on al-Awlaki. The Administration used the reasoning that he was an "enemy combatant" and ordered him killed. My question is, which hasn't been answered, is does the Administration believe that an "enemy combatant" is "engaged in combat"? If they believe so, then if they declared al-Awlaki an "enemy combatant" then they believe they can kill him in the US if apprehension is not feasible.

I don't think "enemy combatant" and "engaged in combat" are synonymous. Those held in Gitmo are still considered "enemy combatants", but I don't think even the Administration would claim that they are "engaged in combat" while still being imprisoned.

 

[TheGrinch]

It doesn't matter what they said. Rand just forced the assholes to respond and admit they don't have the authority to do whatever they want. Win!

Precisely, this isn't a matter of if Obama is being honest or not, it's a matter of forcing them to publicly say they don't have this authority. It will only make it more difficult to hide behind executive power later without mass-criticism.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

See that's where I disagree. I don't think we have a clear answer on al-Awlaki. The Administration used the reasoning that he was an "enemy combatant" and ordered him killed. My question is, which hasn't been answered, is does the Administration believe that an "enemy combatant" is "engaged in combat"? If they believe so, then if they declared al-Awlaki an "enemy combatant" then they believe they can kill him in the US if apprehension is not feasible.

Yes they do. And yes they do/will. They defined imminent as not immediate. They labeled Al Awlaki an imminent threat. That was their 'legal' justification for doing so. [killing him] It can happen here. Durbin says the means of how they dealt with an 'imminent' threat [remember, not immediate, but a possible threat in the future] was inconsequential. Whether it be drones, or a gun shot.

 

[tsai3904]

I don't think "enemy combatant" and "engaged in combat" are synonymous. Those held in Gitmo are still considered "enemy combatants", but I don't think even the Administration would claim that they are "engaged in combat" while still being imprisoned.

What do you think was the Administration's reasoning for killing al-Awlaki? Was it that he was "engaged in combat"?

 

[Darguth]

Precisely, this isn't a matter of if Obama is being honest or not, it's a matter of forcing them to publicly say they don't have this authority. It will only make it more difficult to hide behind executive power later without mass-criticism.

^ Someone who gets it. ^