Republican Senator Filibusters Obama's CIA Nominee Over Drones

[ProSense]

Republican Senator Filibusters Obama's CIA Nominee Over Drones

—By Adam Serwer

<...>

Paul has been pressing the Obama administration for weeks to answer if it believes the president has the authority to order a drone strike on American soil. On Tuesday, Paul received a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, in certain "extraordinary circumstances," such as the attack on Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 attacks, military force could be used domestically. Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Jon Cornyn (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) joined Paul's filibuster, although Wyden reiterated his intention to vote for Brennan's confirmation. The administration recently agreed to allow senators on the intelligence committee access to the legal memos justifying the use of lethal force against American terror suspects.

"That Americans could be killed in a café in San Francisco, or in a restaurant in Houston, or at their home in Bowling Green, Kentucky, is an abomination," Paul said. "It is something that should not and can not be tolerated in our country…Has America the beautiful become Alice's Wonderland?" Paul also criticized the use of signature strikes—lethal operations targeted at anonymous individuals abroad who are believed to be terrorists based on a "pattern of behavior."

During a Senate judiciary committee hearing held earlier Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked Holder whether he believed that it would be constitutional for the president to order a drone strike on an American citizen suspected of terrorism in the United States who was "sitting quietly at a café." After a lengthy back and forth, during which Holder said that he did not think it would be "appropriate" to use lethal force in such a circumstance, and Cruz pressed him on whether that meant "unconstitutional," Holder acknowledged that he did not think it would be constitutional. "Translate my 'appropriate' to 'no,'" Holder said. "No." Holder said he didn't believe the letter he had sent to Paul was inconsistent with that answer.

<...>

"What I worry about are the people who say America is a battlefield," Paul said during his filibuster. "They're saying they want the laws of war to apply here."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/republican-senator-filibusters-obamas-cia-nominee-over-drones

[Vincardog]

1. In this PBO is worse that W

[ProSense]

2. Yeah, especially if you take Rand Paul seriously.

I'm helping in the effort to hype this clown.

[Vincardog]

3. I am referring to the administrations claimed power to kill US citizens based on "Suspicion"

Without review or recourse. Even Dim Son did not get that far in his delusions.
Rand Paul can go have sex with a diseased Yak.

[ProSense]

4. The administration made no such claim. n/t

[Cha]

9. Then where are these people getting that

claim?

Thanks ProSense

[Vincardog]

14. The President has claimed the power just google it. "Obama Kill US Citizens Without review"

[Cha]

19. I read Holder's statement..

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US 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 under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States 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 like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

I trust the Obama Admin to know what they're doing.. they don't lie like bush and his admin did Repeatedly to Bomb Iraq.

[Vincardog]

11. The NY Times seem to think so, Link here

[link:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-power-to-kill.html?_r=0|

[OldDem2012]

8. Got a link referencing your comment? Thanks. nt.

[Vincardog]

12. see my last post or follow this link

[link:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-power-to-kill.html?_r=0|

[OldDem2012]

15. The editorial board of the NY Times thinks a lot of things, but....

....not all of them are accurate or even in the same solar system as the word "truth". They offer opinions based on their own feelings about various subjects, this being one of them.

[onenote]

5. Paul's entire "filibuster" is based on a straw man

He repeatedly concedes, as he must, that the President obviously has the authority to use lethal force against US citizens on US soil to repel an attack. But then he returns again and again to the claim that administration hasn't disavowed killing americans while they sit in a restaurant. But the administration has made it clear that even overseas they could target an American sitting at a restaurant only if capture was infeasible. Now the fact is that capture IS infeasible more often than not i when you're talking about operations in a a foreign country. But in the US, applying that same standard, its all but impossible to conjure up a situation in which targeting someone sitting at McDonald's could be taken out with a drone. But Paul would like to pretend that is what the administration has claimed it can do, even though Holder's letter and his testimony offers zero support for that supposition.

[ProSense]

7. Pfft, details! n/t

[Cha]

10. thanks onenote for clarity and reality.

So many are ready to knee jerk at the President they're taking rand paul at his word.

[Cha]

6. So are those who have been raging on

Harry Reid for not doing away with the Filibuster..now praising him for this talking one?

[Recursion]

20. I think there's a big difference in people's mind between this and a quorum filibuster

Rightly or wrongly. Plus this can't last forever.

[Skip Intro]

13. I think it is a good thing such questions are being asked.

I know there will be many here who say we must support Obama and therefore cannot criticize the admission by the administration that it feels it has the right to kill Americans on American soil.

The government now claims that it can kill you whenever and wherever you are, should it deem you a threat.

This is bigger than party.

This needs push-back from all sides.

[markpkessinger]

16. +1000! n/t

[limpyhobbler]

17. I approve this filibuster. The President claims overly vague authority to kill in the US.

The letter from Holder said the President has the authority to kill Americans in the event of an attack, but it did not limit the authority to only cases of an ongoing attack. The letter did not provide any language to limit the authority by stating the range of cases when the authority does not apply. And that is typical of the cavalier attitude both Bush and Obama have taken toward legitimate concerns about civil liberties during the eternal War on Terror.

I don't think we have a clear enough answer on whether the President thinks he can kill terrorists who may be plotting attacks in the US, and under what circumstances.

Further I think the signature strike policy is disgusting.

Obama is wrong and Rand Paul is doing right on this issue. I have no love for Rand Paul but on this he is right. Right for the wrong reasons probably.

Edit to add: If Senators really want to do their job, they should make a law that clearly limits this claimed Presidential authority. The executive branch is not likely to limit itself. Congress or the courts may be able to.

[zbdent]

18. Too bad the Rs decided to filibuster trampling of citizens' rights over 10 years too late ...

the only reason why they have the courage to do so is because it's a Dem in the White House, and the "liberally-biased media" aint ...