Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rand Paul Launches a Filibuster Against Drone Strikes On US Soil

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the which-aren't-actually-a-thing dept.

The Military 693

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that at about 11:45 am today, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul took the floor of the Senate to launch one of the chamber's rarest spectacles: a genuine filibuster. Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. He called Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to rule out drone strikes to kill an American on U.S. soil 'more than frightening,' adding, 'When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It's an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, "No." The president's response? He hasn't killed anyone yet. We're supposed to be comforted by that.' Any senator can opt to hold the floor to speak on any matter, but the practice of speaking for hours on end is rare, especially in the modern-day Senate, where the chamber's rules are used more often to block legislation or to hold show votes on trivial matters. Paul has since been joined in his symbolic effort by Republicans Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). He has also gotten some bipartisan support from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.). Paul suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of people who might have been considered enemies of the state. 'Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'"

cancel ×

693 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The enemy of my enemy (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098093)

is not my friend. But damn if I'm not happy someone is asking these questions and putting up some serious opposition.

Re:The enemy of my enemy (5, Insightful)

KermodeBear (738243) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098201)

On the other extreme I really like Rand Paul, and though I am not thrilled by people like Pelosi or Reid, I would support them 100% if they would speak out against drone strikes on US citizens.

There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".

Re:The enemy of my enemy (5, Insightful)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098231)

On the other extreme I really like Rand Paul, and though I am not thrilled by people like Pelosi or Reid, I would support them 100% if they would speak out against drone strikes on US citizens.

There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".

Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.

Re:The enemy of my enemy (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098299)

There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".

Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.

Re: Mods

THAT'S NOT FUNNY! It's the crux of the fucking problem!

Re:The enemy of my enemy (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098431)

THAT'S NOT FUNNY! It's the crux of the fucking problem!

Yeah, odd isn't it. Where are all these groups and people now who were protesting against the war. Especially now that Obama has launched three new ones, and wants to have defacto powers to execute americans on american soil without due process. But he wants to give arrest rights to terrorists taken on battlefields. Anyone else see some type of logical disconnect here? Or is the partisan ship really that blindly strong, that they won't "speak up" because it's "not a republican." I'm guessing it's because "not a republican."

Cue the angry whiners that say my post is partisan politics at it's finest. Personally my stake in US politics rides as far as: Canadian interests, how will it effect my property values in Florida, and is cake vs pie still a worthy debate.

Re:The enemy of my enemy (3, Insightful)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098329)

Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.

Really? I remember Pelosi going along with just about everything Bush2 wanted.

Re:The enemy of my enemy (1, Interesting)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098353)

Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.

By then, that Republican president might simply execute them with drones. Speaking against drone strikes is equaled to "supporting terrorists" even now (by some).

Re:The enemy of my enemy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098395)

You're right.

It's just like we had to wait for a Democrat in the White House for the Republicans to demand any action on wartime injustice committed by our country. They had no problem OK'ing all of it under Bush, including torture.

Re:The enemy of my enemy (5, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098445)

So cynically true.

I've come to realize that American politics isn't about policies at all. It's tribalism. How else can you explain how Democrats who once shredded GWB on his horrid civil liberties record, clam up and circle the wagons around Obama when Obama is even worse than GWB. It obviously has nothing to do with the policy being evil if both sides do it, and that leaves nothing but base tribal defense.

Obama and his ilk in the DNC are precisely why I have utterly abandoned them. Last election I voted for my fucking cat on any ballot position for which there was no third party candidate. I'd vote for Satan if he ran as not-GOP or not-DNC, and you know what, I'd be voting for the lesser evil.

Re:The enemy of my enemy (4, Insightful)

sydneyfong (410107) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098245)

There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".

Usually this degenerates to: "I'm right, you're wrong".

Re:The enemy of my enemy (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098383)

There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".

Usually this degenerates to: "I'm right, you're wrong".

If speaking of politicians, I'd say - give them both some drones and permission to obliterate one another: for the last politician standing, we may need to find some other means to keep at bay - the ballot box may be a start.

Re:The enemy of my enemy (2)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098309)

The problem is we are constantly arguing about right and wrong, and how right and how wrong, and how much wrong is ok if it is for a greater right.

Re:The enemy of my enemy (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098405)

Why? what is wrong against stopping someone who is going to do harm to Americans?

Are you saying that if I was shooting up a mall, the police should kill me if they can't reasonably stop me?

Re:The enemy of my enemy (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098295)

I always liked 'the enemy of my enemy is my enemies' enemy. No more, no less'

Re:The enemy of my enemy (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098365)

It's a fake debate using FUD to take the eyes off the fact that the republicans have lied and moved the goal post on the economy and budget issues.

If an American soldier decides to us military firepower on civilians, should a drone be used to stop him? I think we would agree that of a person shot him, it would be thankful, but use the scary word drone and suddenly it's all terminator.

Nothing the President has done, and no interpetatiojn the white house presented included killing Americans on American soil.

If an American is giving information, or aiding the enemy, and if it's ion hostile soil, and if the military can't get a team to the person to capture them, and we can't work out something for the local military/police to take action, then we can use a drone.

And again,l if a team was sent in that killed that person in a firefight, no one would care..add drone to the mix, ohh scary.

And if the president gave a No answer, the republican would all over him for being soft an terrorism. If he said yes they would be all over him..

Tell me, have you told anyone about the child rape you committed?
You have three answer 2 mean you have done it, one mean you aren't going to talk about the issue.

Re:The enemy of my enemy (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098503)

If an American is giving information, or aiding the enemy, and if it's ion hostile soil, and if the military can't get a team to the person to capture them, and we can't work out something for the local military/police to take action, then we can use a drone.

Bradley Manning.

Nuff Said.

Almost... (5, Funny)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098105)

He had a lot of people thinking about it, until he offered up dropping a Hellfire on Jane Fonda. Now they're all thinking "Let's not be hasty here. This is the perfect test case."

Re:Almost... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098191)

Now they're all thinking "Let's not be hasty here. This is the perfect test case."

I can say almost everything she said was horrid and so full of self appointed BS it was not even sorta funny. But she has the right to speak that way. But I must admit I would watch that on youtube...

Re:Almost... (4, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098207)

I was thinking that we have a new rule of the internet:

Any sufficiently advanced humour is indistinguishable from politics.

then I realised that it's the other way around.

Re:Almost... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098249)

Heard on the Senate floor: "Don't drone me, bro."

Re:Almost... (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098415)

Heh.

Unfortunately, looking at how the FBI abused its powers decades ago, we would more likely see such powers used against various college kids. Hoover was infamous for using government powers to crack down on civil rights activists, including going as far as to orchestrate at least one high profile smear campaign to cover up an agent's role in the murder of an activist. All under the idea that civil rights leaders were threats to America and thus enemies of the state.

So it wouldn't be the Jane Fondas of the world that would suffer, it would be no-name nobodies that do not have enough of a public personality to survive the 'they were enemies' rationalization.

It is disturbing... (5, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098111)

Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes.

Why isn't EVERYONE IN CONGRESS alarmed by this?

Re:It is disturbing... (4, Insightful)

Darth Twon (2832799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098151)

Why isn't EVERYONE IN CONGRESS alarmed by this?

They like power. Even though we the people have the power constitutionally speaking...

Re:It is disturbing... (3, Insightful)

IndustrialG33k (1801670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098237)

Why isn't EVERYONE IN CONGRESS alarmed by this?

They like power. Even though we the people have the power constitutionally speaking...

Not for long

Re:It is disturbing... (5, Informative)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098153)

There is no lack of definition: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It's right there. It's a crime against the constitution for the government to kill a US Citizen, on US Soil, without due process.

Re:It is disturbing... (5, Informative)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098171)

Right, but you missed the part where Obama actually took the position that secret tribunals without you present or even aware of them can constitute "due process."

Re:It is disturbing... (4, Informative)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098419)

Can you cite where Obama says targeted killings count as due process? It was my understanding that the stance of the White House considers drone strikes as military actions that don't require due process.

Re:It is disturbing... (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098451)

Right, but you missed the part where Obama actually took the position that secret tribunals without you present or even aware of them can constitute "due process."

Obama can take a position that Congress needs to be summarily dismissed, since executive branch is handling things just fine without them.

But if he has no authority to do so, then Congress is supposed to stop him. After all the huffing and puffing, Congress cannot even seem to get a reading copy of legal memos authorizing drone strikes. How much more subservient can they get?

Re:It is disturbing... (3, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098515)

Obama can take a position that Congress needs to be summarily dismissed, since executive branch is handling things just fine without them.

Interestingly enough, shortly after the Congress declared war in WW2, President Roosevelt "suggested" that Congress go into recess until the war was over...

Luckily for all of us, Congress told him to pound sand....

Re:It is disturbing... (1, Interesting)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098223)

So, that means nobody, not even the police, can for instance shoot someone when they are putting other people in danger or in self-defense???

This is of course the rub. Just being a government official doesn't reduce your rights, and EVERY CITIZEN CAN ALREADY DO WHAT Rand Paul is TECHNICALLY arguing against. If I happen to have a drone and its armed and I see something happening I can shoot people with it. In the state I live in I can do that if I am reasonably sure that force is necessary to prevent loss of life, commission of crimes, etc.

Re:It is disturbing... (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098337)

Just being a government official doesn't reduce your rights, and EVERY CITIZEN CAN ALREADY DO WHAT Rand Paul is TECHNICALLY arguing against. If I happen to have a drone and its armed and I see something happening I can shoot people with it. In the state I live in I can do that if I am reasonably sure that force is necessary to prevent loss of life, commission of crimes, etc.

Interesting....

I think you may have, unknowingly, touched upon the one rationale that may cause our venerable Representatives to rethink their position regarding domestic drone usage...

"What, you mean The People can use them to shoot at US TOO??!! BAN THEM!! BAN THEM AAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!"

Re:It is disturbing... (4, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098345)

Ah, but there is the crux. Under current law yes, you can kill, but the person has to be an immediate threat. The way drones are being used, not only are they killing people who are not an immediate threat, but they are starting to abstract it to people who are not field agents in the first place including simple 'material support'.

Re:It is disturbing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098351)

Mod this up.

Re:It is disturbing... (2)

JWW (79176) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098433)

I'm pretty sure that no matter how much "self-defense" you are engaging in, if you cause any "collateral damage" with your hypothetical drone defense, you will go to jail for the rest of your life.

Whereas if the government executes a drone strike to kill a citizen terrorist, and innocents die, their families will just get told "sorry".

Neither you nor the government should be allowed to fly armed drones in the public airspace.

Re:It is disturbing... (5, Informative)

cusco (717999) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098257)

This is an error I see repeated all the time. Nowhere does it say "citizen" in that statement. The Constitution pertains to everyone, including illegal immigrants, foreign fighters that have infiltrated the border, fishermen offshore but within territorial waters, tourists, everyone. The only place in the Constitution where citizenship is mentioned is in qualifications to hold office. Sorry, maybe I'm just being picky but I think it's an important point.

Re:It is disturbing... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098361)

Sorry, maybe I'm just being picky but I think it's an important point.

You are not, because it is.

Re:It is disturbing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098373)

The Constitution pertains to everyone, including illegal immigrants, foreign fighters that have infiltrated the border, fishermen offshore but within territorial waters,

Wrong. That's why it's not called the Constitution of the Everyone, but rather the Constitution of the United States of America. That means it only applies to "citizens" of the United States of America, or guests (tourists, etc).

Reading is good.

Re:It is disturbing... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098485)

Commonly referred to as US Persons. Or the constitutional concept of personhood.

Re:It is disturbing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098377)

I haven't seen the memo, only the reports.

But supposing another hijacked aircraft were heading for NYC. Would the President have the authority to order it to be shot down? From the language that has been quoted, I think that must be what this memo is about.

Re:It is disturbing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098391)

That's a completely arbitrary intrepretation with zero common law jurisprudence or case law precedence to back it up.

Law Interpretation (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098511)

I agree. The constitution applies to EVERYONE, not just citizens.

HOWEVER, I'm going to get a bit pedantic and argue that 'held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime' is DIFFERENT than the government moving to kill you. The government is also charged with "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

IF you have a group of citizens in the position of being part of an Insurrection, the government isn't holding them to answer for a crime. It's treating them as enemy combatants. In which case no trial is necessary, and killing them isn't even really supposed to be a punishment.

That's why I sort of agree with Holder. My position at the moment is "While I cannot currently envision a scenario where a drone strike would be the best option against US Citizens on US Soil, I cannot rule out such a scenario occurring. The authorization for such action would have to come from the highest levels and be subject to the strictest scrutiny'.

Re:It is disturbing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098273)

when in actual service in time of War or public danger

We are at war with Terrorism. We have been always at war with Terrorism.

The public is in grave danger.

Re:It is disturbing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098357)

That passage doesn't mention US citizen or US soil, therefore it should apply to all people anywhere in the world excepting those that the US is at war with.

Re:It is disturbing... (4, Informative)

sokoban (142301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098407)

The Insurrection Act (w/ 2006 amendments) however does in fact authorize use of military force in certain circumstances:
"(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

Re:It is disturbing... (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098519)

It's right there. It's a crime against the constitution for the government to kill a US Citizen, on US Soil, without due process.

Allow me to point out some other things that are in the Constitution:

  • Use taxes are effectively a sales tax on interstate commerce, which falls into the powers granted solely to the federal government. The Supreme Court upheld them because apparently nobody cares if something fails the duck test anymore.
  • Searches of your personal papers without a warrant are unconstitutional, yet every day, LEOs violate that. Somehow those papers existing electronically makes them special, for no reason other than because that makes it more convenient for the government.
  • Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended except under certain extreme circumstances, and the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to a speedy trial. Yet there are people in a Guantanamo Bay right now who have not gotten a trial after more than a decade.

And so on. The fact of the matter is that you only have the rights that you are willing to defend. If we as a society are unwilling to vote the bums out for defiling the Constitution, then that becomes the new normal. Worse, because justices change over time, newer justices who see these abuses as normal will have less reason to question the next set of abuses. Over the generations, this results in an almost unstoppable march towards tyranny. The slippery slope is very real. It just takes several generations to be fully realized.

Of course, historically speaking, things always eventually get to a point where the masses revolt and form a new government designed to protect them from the abuses of the past, usually by ensuring that the worst usurpers are the first against the wall. However, just as inevitably, that new government eventually gets perverted over the decades or centuries until it looks a lot like what they had before. Rinse, repeat. And this pattern pretty much describes all governments throughout history.

Sadly, there is one truth, and that is this: that which you are unwilling to defend will be taken away from you. If you value freedom, you must be willing to act against those who would take it away—casting your vote, running for office, and so on. If you do not do that, then you have no rights, and no piece of paper is ever going to change that.

Re:It is disturbing... (3, Interesting)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098167)

Let's start with why isn't the general public alarmed? They are opposed, certainly. But not alarmed. I don't know if the media is to blame, but they could definitely change this lack of alarm. How easy would it be to apply journalistic tricks (questions in headlines) and plain old focus to this issue?

Example Headlines: "Drone Strikes, Could YOU Be Targeted?" or "The 5th Amendment: Still Standing?".

Articles could then explore who might be killed, or whether these strikes are a clear violation of constitutional rights.

We could also see these issues brought to the forefront more readily.

Re:It is disturbing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098413)

Let's start with why isn't the general public alarmed?

The general problem is overcome with a sense of ennui. The Republican Party by crying wolf so many times has become discredited, and therefore, when the wolf does attacks, nobody gives a shit.

They're just a bunch of stupid cocks who want our attention, who wants them to keep crowing at us?

Re:It is disturbing... (2)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098303)

These are a lot of the same people that felt it was better to just ignore Gitmo rather than deal with the prisoners there.

There's not that much difference between sending a drone in or a fighter jet, or a team of marines - all things congress has been ok with in the past.

Re:It is disturbing... (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098471)

While I agree with Mr. Paul and I'm similarly alarmed, remember that these are the same people who felt torture was an okay thing in certain situations. It usually started with the whole, "Imagine a terrorist has a nuclear weapon..."

Re:It is disturbing... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098479)

Because it's not a real issue.

Drones attacks are a military attack, as such they are government be the same laws and policy's that dictate what a ship can fire at, or a plane can bomb.
They use drones as a scare word.

I, and probably you, can think of several instance where stopping an american with deadly force is what needs to be done.

Re:It is disturbing... (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098531)

Because, (D) good (R) Bad (or Visa Versa). That's why. In this case, if this was GWB, it would be bad, but since it is Obama, it is okay. Just look through the post on this thread to see plenty of (D)s saying it is okay because it is a (D) president. It is shocking.

frosty piss! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098113)

just kidding. I'm glad at least one other person sees a problem with that. For those that think it's ok: in 4 years, it might be President Jeb Bush.

But Cruz is a-Pauling? (3, Interesting)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098123)

That's why we elect the Populist candidate every once in awhile... keeps it interesting... well done, Senator, well done.

Re:But Cruz is a-Pauling? (0)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098363)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to hold hearings on the program rather than obstruct confirmations? He's basically abusing senate rules (while crippling government - a tea party win) to talk about an unrelated subject. If it weren't drones it would have been another issue. It's not like drones just came into use this week.

You can (3, Interesting)

Pop69 (700500) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098139)

After due process of law, isn't that the constitutional justification for the death penalty ?

Re:You can (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098211)

After due process of law, isn't that the constitutional justification for the death penalty ?

If you are a member of the police force you don't even need due process, you just need someone vaguely threatening you.

Re:You can (3, Insightful)

johnny cashed (590023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098281)

I think that due process includes the right to confront your accuser in court and a trial by a jury of your peers. Not by getting the right signature from someone above your rank.

Re:You can (1)

Pop69 (700500) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098369)

What does your constitution define as due process of law ?

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what is written down

Re:You can (2)

johnny cashed (590023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098535)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights [wikipedia.org]

True, the constitution doesn't define what "law" is, but the Supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of the law of the US. And while "war" might be a mitigating factor, secret tribunals are not permitted.

Re:You can (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098331)

No grand jury, no fair trial, no jury of 12 equals no due process of law.

Sharks with friggin lasers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098147)

It's more entertaining if you replace "drones" with "sharks with lasers on their head"

Fonda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098159)

Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'"

Tricky question. I torn.

Jane Fonda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098163)

'Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'

Actually, I'd be all for that...

Yes (-1, Troll)

Ryanrule (1657199) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098169)

It's true. This man has no dick.

Ron Wyden (4, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098181)

Once again, Ron Wyden's name appears in a noble context. The man needs to run for President.

Re:Ron Wyden (1)

tvlinux (867035) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098423)

Amen

Re:Ron Wyden (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098525)

Nobility causes cancer...

Um... (1)

corporate zombie (218482) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098185)

Holder's comment that set off Paul was that he wouldn't rule out a President using drone attacks on US soil during such hypothetical events as those of 7 Dec 1941 and 11 Sep 2001. From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.

Re:Um... (3, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098243)

From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.

Uh, I think you missed the point. Fonda was viewed by many Americans as a traitor during the Vietnam War, both for the things she said, and for an incident where she was photographed sitting on a NVA anti-aircraft gun (which she has explained was unintentional, but nobody bought that).

The comparison to Fonda is meant to bring up an image of a hated, anti-American citizen who might be worthy of getting taken out. That's the reference he was making.

Re:Um... (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098537)

Not to mentioned accepted a gift of Jewelry made from a shot-down B-52.

Re:Um... (2)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098297)

From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.

You obviously haven't seen Barbarella [imdb.com] .

Neither have I. :p

If you think about it... (3, Interesting)

CommieLib (468883) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098209)

There's only reason why you would refuse to rule it out - it's already happened, and if it becomes commonly known, you'll have nowhere to retreat to politically.

Re:If you think about it... (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098247)

False. I doubt it's happened, and there are plenty of other reasons to assert the authority. It is probably enshrined in some policy document someplace as the appropriate contingency under certain circumstances (e.g. outright revolt).

Re:If you think about it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098305)

OR it may have already happened and even being in charge you have no way of knowing thanks to the bureaucracy of it all, and just want to cover your own ass. Remember, don't ascribe to malice what could very well be incompetence.

Due Process (4, Informative)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098221)

Due Process is the magic term. Obama asserts that due process does not necessarily imply trial by a jury of your peers. It can be a secret tribunal in which you aren't present, or even aware it is taking place. That's the constitutional contortion they are using to justify this particular gem. The real problem is that it's almost impossible to challenge in the courts. First of all you need someone that can demonstrate damages (good luck, you just blew him up). Second of all you need to get around state-secrets privilege in order to actually see the evidence they used to declare someone an enemy combatant. Good luck with that.

Re:Due Process (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098417)

Obama asserts that due process does not necessarily imply trial by a jury of your peers.

Then perhaps President "Constitutional Scholar" should consider reading the document he supposedly went to school to study, specifically:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"

In short, I don't give two fucks what some asshat politician 'asserts,' the definition is there, in plain fucking English, so that everyone will know their rights.

Re:Due Process (1)

sokoban (142301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098483)

Due Process is the magic term.

No, Insurrection Act is the magic term. The President has the authority to use the military as needed to "suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition...that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

Re:Due Process (1)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098505)

Er, i would think Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year old son could demonstrate the damages of the loss of his father's income to support him when Obama assasinated him.

Oh wait! He can't! They killed him too.

Seriously, this tyrant Obama needs to be stopped.

I'd wager that calling for Obama's death by striving for a treason indightment, trial, conviction, and capital punishment, you know, subjecting him to the rule of law, would be twisted as a threat against the life of the president.

Kentucky Republican Rand Paul (0)

Applekid (993327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098233)

Gotta say, this is perhaps the first time in my life I've ever wished to live in Kentucky, preferably in Rand Paul's district. Although I'm glad my Senator (Marco Rubio) is standing with him.

Re:Kentucky Republican Rand Paul (3, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098267)

Since he's a senator, you could say the entire state is his district.

Re:Kentucky Republican Rand Paul (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098347)

preferably in Rand Paul's district

Perhaps you need a refresher course in American Civics.

Senators don't have districts. There are two, and both represent the whole state. Only representatives are districted.

Re:Kentucky Republican Rand Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098495)

If you support his actions, you're better off living elsewhere. He's already been voted in - pressure your local representatives to take action on the issue or vote in ones that will. It won't get anywhere with only 5 people supporting it, it needs more to get somewhere.

He'd be OK with it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098259)

...as long as it was done by state governments. Or only targeted black people. The Paul's fully support State's Rights to oppress their citizens. They just don't want Washington to do it because of that pesky Civil Rights Act.

People don't seem to understand what a drone is... (1, Interesting)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098261)

It seems apparent that Rand Paul, and many other Americans, don't actually understand what the drones actually are or how they work. The drones are no different to when the US uses cruise missiles launched from warships, or manned warplanes, or CIA wetwork teams to kill people in foreign countries. They're still controlled by the military, flown by actual operators.

There isn't some secret army of robots that Obama unilaterally controls which no one can stop. The only different thing which has happened is that the drones make doing something which tends to annoy other nations way easier since you don't run the risk of political blowback from a downed pilot in a foreign country.

Re:People don't seem to understand what a drone is (4, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098499)

An armed drone strike is the functional equivalent of launching a manned jet strike. While there is a lot of hyperbole on both sides, this is one point we need to make sure stays absolutely clear. If you wouldn't hit it with an F-15 on US Soil, you shouldn't use a drone to do it.

Right action for wrong reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098283)

Drone strikes are just a new military option. Sure there are new moral issues to consider about them, but that's not what Paul is arguing about. The problem is that there's an ill-defined war against an ill-defined enemy with an ill-defined battlefield and nobody's even thinking about how to declare the war over, let alone have some sort of objective assessment of its effectiveness. This sort of thing is bound to happen, drones or no drones. US troops shot US citizens in the US civil war, no arrest, no trial, no drones. There were almost certainly terrible abuses of this. The difference is the war was much better defined back then, and the practice ended with the end of the war.

But even though the drone business is a bit of a red herring, there's plenty of reason to filibuster Brennan. The issue of torture alone should keep him far, far from any position of power.

But, for lack of anyone standing up for any sensible principle, I guess I'll side with Paul because he's at least standing up. And he's doing it with a real honest-to-goodness filibuster, not some backroom procedural no-accountability nonsense.

Political showboating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098301)

People get killed by local, state, and federal employees with bullets ... where is due process in that situation. Statesman is trying to salvage a dead-end career. Due process needs to be across the board.

MOVE anybody? (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098307)

Anyone remember the MOVE bombing in 1985? Drone or no drone, this is what we're moving towards.

Re:MOVE anybody? (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098411)

Nope. Didn't remember it.

Fortunately, Wikipedia to the rescue. [wikipedia.org]

Saxby Chambliss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098315)

Saxby Chambliss wouldn't be saying no if there were a republican in the Oval Office.

Please drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098335)

I'd vote for that!

Rand Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098367)

is a fool. Nobody with a brain would ever stand against his intellectual superiors. He rebels against the genetic and mental superiority of the democratic party because he is mentally challenged. I'll bet he has a habit of eating his own shit.

Garbage in, garbage out. Vote for the real movers and shakers in Washington, D.C., vote Democrat. Don't vote for the limp wristed faggots in the Republican Party, those gun-loving retards in the Tea Party, or those filthy pot smoking negro Libertarians. Vote for us because otherwise you are just telling the world that you are a motherfucking loser with an IQ of about 60.

Vote for the Democratic Party. We're gonna change America.

Link to Holder's Full Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098385)

After reading this, Paul looks like he's overreacting:

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

Re:Link to Holder's Full Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098493)

"for the president to authorize lethal military force" within the us borders? No he is not overreacting

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43098459)

I think this is more of a political stunt (see Ron Paul's showboating on the Gold Standard for decades) but unlike the Gold Standard, this is actually a moral/ethical line attempting to be drawn rather than pure greed being the motivating factor.

Remember Terminator 2? No Fate right?

Do you know why the machines are rising up against us? It's because machines are programmed to do one thing efficiently. With drones that's either monitor or kill.

What happens when the Drone operators can barely tell the difference between real people going about their ways, and terrorism (see the leaked video of from Iraq that where the Americans killed the journalists, but over the audio you hear them calling them terrorists.)

Drone operators have to be held accountable for every action. On US soil these things should not even be armed with anything other that tear gas.

Exceptions? (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098463)

Well. If drones are good enough to attack Afghans, why should there be an exception for americans? Also " the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes" wasn't a problem in Afghanistan.

But really. If you replace "americans" and "afghans" by "people", why can drones be allowed to kill some people and not some other. Again, nationality is not the issue. The question is more about either the reason to use drones or even to use drones at all.

which is the lesser evil? (1)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098469)

I don't like the idea of filibusters, it's a way to take advantage of the system and prevent legislation with majority support from passing. That said, I don't care for the drone strikes either. So I don't know which is the lesser of the two evils.

Do I support the filibuster, based on the contemptable bill it's trying to block, or do I condemn it since it could just as easily be used tomorrow to prevent passage of a bill I'd like to see pass and that has majority support? I suppose in the end, if the rest of the system were working correctly, (and often it's not) then majority should rule, and filibusters should be illegal. I can't support something that's bad in principle simply because it's convenient for me this time.

maybe Paul will lose his voice and go away (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#43098539)

in which case a filibuster would have done some good, for once.

all the Administration would have had to do is pass out a two sentence news release... "The Government is committed to securing our citizens' safety, as demanded in the Constitution. If we find enemy combatants in action within the nation's borders, we'll deal with them as on any other battlefield."

but then, the GOP is committed to NO for Obama's 8 years in office, so they're the drones boring in Congress. total warheads.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?