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

[supermario21]

He did vote for cloture, so a reverse of the Hagel proceedings.

 

[MaxPower]

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, that's the thing-- when our humble public servants refer to someone as a "combatant," they clearly take the term to mean something much different from what the rest of us do; that they would also have, shall we say, an esoteric definition of the word "combat" (that in which "combatants" engage) would come as no shock.

Nevertheless, the significant thing here is the victory Rand has obtained for us in principle-- he challenged the administration to go all the way with their rationale that the "War on Terror" is waged everywhere at all times and justifies the de facto abolition of the Bill of Rights, and they backed down. It is sad that it had to come to this-- literally to the question of whether or not the president simply has a license to kill anyone, anywhere, any time, at his discretion-- before enough public outrage could be stirred up to make them feel the heat, but feel it they did.

 

[dinosaur]

Against confirmation. A reporter on the floor just tweeted it.

They just read results on C-Span. Paul voted against confirmation and Rubio voted for confirmation.

 

[D.A.S.]

We're not going to get everything we want in this moment. This is a long fight and we need to take our wins where we can and build upon the momentum.

It was very smart of Rand to pose a very specific question and hammer it home until he got a response. He showed the system of checks and balances at work. Was it a limited question? Yes. But by concentrating on the specific and incendiary issue of drone-killing of US Citizens on the US soil, he was able to get a lot of people to support his filibuster - people who would have never supported his filibuster if it delved into the matters of foreign policy and the Al-Awlaki matter.

I think this is how you start, slowly build up the coalition, and then gradually expand the debate. This put the national spotlight on Rand, and this is the sort of courage and leadership that American people need to see. Big score for Rand.

 

[Deborah K]

What's important is that the door has been opened for discussion of that, drones even for surveillence, etc.

If you think this is just about getting the White House to make a disengenous statement, that's a bit short-sighted. This is much bigger than that. It's about holding their feet to the fire on what they can and can't do. Maybe people will actually make a stink now on all matters of due process in the future.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make here:

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/

Only you stated it better.

 

[RockEnds]

I'm really glad to hear this. This was a huge win for Rand. He got the response from Holder before the vote. Awesome!! Disingenuous or not, Holder did directly answer the question. And the best part of all was that DC learned that the American people are not nearly as sedated as previously believed.

 

[newbitech]

"you have now asked an additional question"

there will be many more. Pay attention next time, dumbass.

 

[Lucille]

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.

As I said in my -rep, screw you, pal. I don't know what your problem is, but my comment was not an attack on Rand's inspiring and historic filibuster, m'kay? It was an attack on that POS Holder's word games. If you think they don't believe the executive branch has the authority to play judge, jury and executioner, then that bridge I'm allegedly under is for sale to you at a special price.

What Holder Really Said
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...nd-We-can-kill-you-if-we-think-ur-a-combatant

It took a 13-hour filibuster from Senator Rand Paul to wring this terse statement from Attorney General Eric Holder:

“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.”

Like all statements from people who presume to rule others, this brief message from Holder – – who is Nickolai Krylenko to Obama’s Josef Stalin – should be read in terms of the supposed authority claimed thereby. This means removing useless qualifiers in the interest of clarity.

What Holder is saying, in substantive terms, is that the President does have the supposed authority to use a drone to kill an American who is engaged in “combat,” whether here or abroad.

"Combat" can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel.

Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact.

This is a murderous application of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy," and it will be used when -- not if -- Obama or a successor starts conducting domestic drone-killing operations.

Holder selected a carefully qualified question in order to justify a narrowly tailored answer that reserves an expansive claim of executive power to authorize summary executions by the president.

That’s how totalitarians operate.

Hell, even the head Trot over at neo-Trot central can see that, and he's a pretty big fan of the bifactional ruling party's endless wars, the police state, and the Imperial presidency:

Also, before you celebrate, think carefully about whether Holder’s really answering his concerns. Paul wasn’t just asking about “weaponized drones.” He was asking about targeted killing generally. Sending the CIA in to shoot a guy in the head because he’s on O’s “kill list” doesn’t address the due process concerns just because no drone was used. The phrase “not engaged in combat” is also murky since the entire point of this debate is about defining what it means to be “engaged in combat” against the United States. Paul’s point yesterday was that, even if a U.S. citizen is an “enemy combatant,” the feds should be barred from summarily executing him if he’s on U.S. soil. Only if he’s in the process of carrying out an attack is lethal force justified. That’s his definition of “engaged in combat,” at least inside the continental U.S. The alternate definition is that an “enemy combatant” is, by his very nature, always engaged in combat against America. The DOJ itself more or less adopted that definition by defining “imminence” so broadly in its “white paper” on drone attacks as to suggest that members of Al Qaeda are always, at every moment, posing an imminent threat because they’re “continually plotting.” By that standard, Obama could drop a bomb on a U.S.-born jihadi hiding in an American safe house and still be okay under Holder’s letter here because the target was, as a member of Al Qaeda who was up to no good, necessarily “engaged in combat.”

hxxp://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/07/jay-carney-okay-fine-obama-doesnt-have-the-authority-to-target-americans-on-u-s-soil/

 

[seapilot]

They just read results on C-Span. Paul voted against confirmation and Rubio voted for confirmation.

Rubio just proved he is all about attention getting and not principal. Perfect puppet material.

 

[Melissa]

Has anyone seen the roll call yet...

 

[puppetmaster]

but they can declare anyone they want an enemy combatant....../so what is the point holder....

 

[kcchiefs6465]

but they can declare anyone they want an enemy combatant....../so what is the point holder....

And an imminent threat isn't necessarily an immediate threat. Still a step in the right direction. [that they even responded] There's a lot that needs to be done still.

 

[tsai3904]

Has anyone seen the roll call yet...

No but:

GOP yes votes on #Brennan: Alexander, Burr, Coats, Coburn, Collins, Corker, Flake, Graham, Hatch, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Rubio
Democratic no votes on #Brennan: Merkley, Leahy, Sanders

 

[Lucille]

The deliberately obtuse troll Brian Doherty would also like some clarification:

Did Rand Paul Win? White House Says No Authority to Kill Noncombatants on U.S. Soil
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/07/did-rand-paul-win-white-house-says-no-au

But who is a noncombatant? What constitutes engaging in hostile activities to the White House? Does this still leave the "we declare you a combatant" excuse? More clarity needed.

UPDATE: Via Politico, the complete text of a letter Attorney General Holder sent to Rand Paul today. In its entirety: "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."

Still: what defines "engaged in combat" to you guys? Doesn't seem to actively apply to most victims of overseas drones. Does it mean, as Lindsey Graham suggested, just being a member of Al-Queda, a topic on which the White House will undoubtedly declare itself sole judge (and then jury, and executioner)? Also, the mechanism of the kill--mechanized drone--isn't the sole issue at point here. It's summary executive power to decide who to kill without charge or trial in a Forever War.

 

[Melissa]

Thanks so much..One of my Senators was at the dinner with the President last night then he posted on facebook how he supported what Rand did (of course he did not actually do anything to support Rand but hey if you facebook it...then it must be true right and I wanted to see how he voted today and of course he voted yes...real strong support there for Rand....

No but:

GOP yes votes on #Brennan: Alexander, Burr, Coats, Coburn, Collins, Corker, Flake, Graham, Hatch, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Rubio
Democratic no votes on #Brennan: Merkley, Leahy, Sanders

 

[TheGrinch]

This is exactly the point I was trying to make here:



Only you stated it better.

Not at all. Per my +rep to you:

your post was even better, mine was just succinct

 

[tsai3904]

Thanks so much.

Off topic but if you are in Indiana, I would encourage you to try and get Joe Donnelly to cosponsor S. 209, Rand's Audit the Fed bill. He voted for it in the House last year and we need more Democratic cosponsors.

 

[juleswin]

Definitely a win! Loss for Graham and McCain though...What are they thinking in attacking Paul??

They are showing their mavericky ness

 

[Melissa]

I will try.. I have actually given up on Federal issues and we have been working very hard on our State house and getting these guys on record with their votes so we can primary some of them come next year...

Off topic but if you are in Indiana, I would encourage you to try and get Joe Donnelly to cosponsor S. 209, Rand's Audit the Fed bill. He voted for it in the House last year and we need more Democratic cosponsors.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

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?

an "enemy combatant", hmmm... who is that? Like the people that donated to a food aid program that Hezbollah was helping with for contributing material aid to terrorism? Like that kid in Chicago that got put on ice for several years on suspicion of building a dirty bomb and was finally cut loose because the gvmt didn't have any evidence?

A phrase people are missing here is an American on American soil engaged in combat.

What happens when some petty bureaucrat decides you are a terrorist or enemy combatant?

You are stripped of your American citizenship!
You are stripped of your civil rights!

Bring on the drones!

Remember that in the legal system, the word "rape" is different than what we think it means. It means "unwanted touching", and it need not be in a "private" area. Holder is just using weasle words and blowing smoke up our asses!

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.

"apprehended" like Dorner, and Bonnie and Clyde and WACO and Ruby Ridge, and NOW...

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.

They used a spy sat against WACO, and a drone against Dorner.

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)?

Drone pilot guide to grenade launcher recognition:

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

Did it get clogged or do they source their toilets from some country other then 'Merica?

-t