This is the right way to filibuster

[Recursion]

And, frankly, Paul's questions merit an answer. I'll be interested to see how long this goes.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Hypothetical: Tim McVeigh is barreling down the highway

in Oklahoma in a Ryder truck full of explosives toward the Murrah Federal Building and the FBI/CIA know about it (having tracked him), and he has evaded/ignored orders from law enforcement to stop. Shootout? Drone Strike? Which agency should stop him? That LA officer a few weeks ago brought up these questions--he was killed without a trial, with bullets or fire instead of missiles. I don't know what the answer is.

[Recursion]

2. Not the military. That's existing law.

If Congress wants to change posse comitatus, then we can have that discussion, but this is where the law stands, and on the balance I find an executive that claims that right a greater threat in the long term than the next terrorist.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I thought the CIA was giving the orders to do drone strikes, but some in Congress

want it all to be military now. What about Guard? FBI? How about local LE? Will they ever get to use drones with weapons?

[Recursion]

5. This isn't about drones. Drones are a distraction.

Drones have nothing to do with the Constitutional question here. Replace "drones" with "snipers" and the question is the same, and less distracting IMO.

[TwilightGardener]

7. But police snipers can already kill people who are in the midst of hostage taking,

mass murder, threatening police, etc. I can't see a scenario in which the FBI or CIA know about a terrorist crime plot and DON'T move to apprehend the suspects before they are in the act of committing the deed, but rather just kill with drones or some other form of assassination. We've arrested terror suspects before, we'll do it again. Drones seem to scare people more than bullets, but in the end, if you resist arrest and are on your way to do something horrible, you'll be stopped one way or another if law enforcement knows about it in advance. There won't be due process.

[Recursion]

11. Police snipers are local. This is a Constitutional issue

This isn't about the killing, it's about who does it. At least for me.

[TwilightGardener]

12. So FBI then. FBI with drones vs. bullets. Or ATF. This has come up before.

It's only the killing technology that's changed.

[Recursion]

13. The FBI and ATF can respond to violations of Federal law. This is about military force.

The FBI, ATF, etc. (even the USDA and Department of Education have armed agents) can respond to violations of Federal law and act at the request of local law enforcement, and can use force in doing so. That is not controversial. This question is about the military extending its warfighting to US soil.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Seems like that would be simple to clear up, then.

9/11 already touched on some of this, with the potential for orders to bring down rogue civilian planes.

[Recursion]

16. Yes, I think it would be too, but that's precisely what Holder refused to do

And that's what is so irritating.

[TwilightGardener]

17. I think Holder is basically saying if, hypothetically, another terror attack

was in progress that was beyond the scope of regular law enforcement, the military could be called to act on American soil, presumably in terms of bringing down a plane or some other vehicle. I don't think we would assassinate, based on just plotting to commit an act--if we can locate them to kill with drones before the act, why wouldn't we just arrest them?

[Recursion]

23. That wouldn't be "targeted", that would be "signature"

Signature force is "someone is observed doing X, engage, whoever that is". That's the same principle under which you can shoot down a hijacked airliner.

Targeted force is "there is John Smith, engage, no matter what he's doing".

[TwilightGardener]

26. Why would we all of a sudden start doing that, unless that sneaky Obama

has changed the Constitution?

[Recursion]

28. Why does Holder refuse to say he won't do that? (nt)

[TwilightGardener]

29. You're asking Holder to say outright he plans to uphold the Constitution, as if he wouldn't

and doesn't? See, this must be the game the Repubs are playing here, because they know Brennan will be confirmed, and with plenty of R votes--make the Obama administration say it won't do something that is already illegal or unconstitutional. I guess you could make Holder swear he won't pull the plug on your comatose Granny without your consent. Or make him swear he won't slash your tires if he gets angry at you. Or whatever.

[Recursion]

30. Yes, I'm asking Holder to affirm that posse comitatus still limits Presidential military authority

I'm asking that very directly, because the post-9/11 AUF leaves that dangerously ambiguous.

[TwilightGardener]

31. What does that have to do with Brennan? He isn't SecDef, and he doesn't make the laws

that Holder's office does.

[Recursion]

32. If I liked Brennan more I might complain about the timing

As it is, I'm just glad the point is being raised, even if it's by the Senate's resident rodeo clown.

[TheMadMonk]

34. Drones turn death into a video game. /nt

[Malik Agar]

3. Have you listened to Rand today?

He actually agrees with that point and has said it multiple times. His concern is the use of drones in the execution/assassination of people that are not posing IMMEDIATE threats.

[TwilightGardener]

6. No, I don't care for Rand Paul, and I'm not interested in him specifically,

but I am interested in the topic, and do agree that this all needs to be clarified legally.

[rapmanej]

8. Have you listened to Rand today?

No

[Marr]

19. Didn't we get enough of this "24" bullshit during Bush's term?

And didn't the actual definition of these 'extraordinary situations' turn out to be all-too-common?

The situation you describe would already be handled by our current system. There's no reason whatsoever to give some politician the right to execute citizens by fiat.

[TwilightGardener]

20. I don't think anything is different--that's my point.

If we had suspected terrorists here, we'd arrest them. On foreign soil, that's the big question, but I don't think that's what this filibuster is about.

[dixiegrrrrl]

9. Ron Wyden ( Dem) of Oregon stood up for Paul earlier today.

No other Dems seem to be interested in the issue of Constitutionality of attacking Americans without due process.

Twitter is chock full of people from all political stripes supporting the question.

[1983law]

14. That's not fair

Because the dems are not standing with Paul does not mean they are disinterested in due process in this regard.

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. What do you think of the Dem Senator reaction to the resolution

that Paul proposed?

[1983law]

35. Here's a link...

to the resolution. I am still musing over the events of the day.

[dixiegrrrrl]

37. The link is not showing on my screen.

[Hayabusa]

10. He tagged out again

letting another Republican ask a few "questions"

[Recursion]

18. Barrasso's turn now

I don't know anything about this guy.

[morningfog]

22. This is what a filibuster should be. I am glad to see a return.

And, while I think Paul is an idiot and hard to take seriously at times, there are legitimate and serious questions on Obama's drone policy that deserve scrutiny and answers.

[BlueCheese]

24. We're not talking about an attack in progress or immediate crisis.

Everybody agrees that we can shoot down a hijacked airliner, or kill someone in an armed hostage situation with law enforcement.

The administration has said, however, that it has the authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad with much lower thresholds-- in which the person doesn't even have to be planning anything in the near future-- without due process. The question is whether they think they have such authority within the U.S.

I think it's an incredibly important question. And the answers that "we wouldn't have to, because we could arrest that person", or "we haven't done it yet and don't have plans to do so in the future" aren't sufficient. The question is not whether you would or whether you have, but whether you think you have that power. (And consequently, whether President Jeb Bush or President Rubio should have that power as well.)

[TwilightGardener]

25. American citizens on US soil get due process. Why do people think something has changed?

[Zax2me]

27. Well, it's tiring. He just drones on and on and on....

5 cent joke.
What did you expect for a nickel?!

[1983law]

33. I laughed.

[loyalsister]

36. They have merit, but they are off topic just like Bengazie was used to distract from the real goal

In both cases they are just trying to weaken the president. He can send a leter, request a meeting, file a bill. Time and place. They are just being destructive.