Drones are a distraction. Drones are peripheral to the question Paul is raising.

[Recursion]

Forget drones. Replace "drone" with "sniper" in every mental scene you're constructing.

The first President to use military force again US citizens was Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion. The principle that a President can use force against US citizens on US soil is decided: the President can. But so far, only in cooperation with and at the request of local authorities, or as directed by Congress. Washington did not claim the ability to both independently declare someone hostis humani generis and use military force to neutralize him. Holder's letter does maintain that the President is legally empowered to do that (or, which is much the same, he refuses to lay out the limits to that power).

Forget drones. Should a hypothetical President Michelle Bachmann have the legal authority to use military force against a US Citizen on US soil that she considers an imminent threat? And if not, then what would stop her? There will be evil presidents in the future, and I'd rather risk a slower response to a terrorist attack than increase their power.

[WillyT]

1. Would We Allow A Cop To Come Up And Shoot Somebody In The Head Because Of Perceived Guilt ???

No... we would not.

NO ONE MAN, SHOULD EVER ACT AS JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER.

And I DO NOT CARE who that man or woman is.

[randome]

9. We do allow cops to shoot someone who is an imminent threat.

[WillyT]

18. True... And There Would Be A Thorough Investigation To Determine If The Shooting Was Justified...

And the officer would be given desk duty, or suspended, until the investigating "cleared" him or her.

IOW - The entire matter would be under intense scrutiny. Because cops have to justify their actions... Presidents... apparently not so much.

[randome]

22. I agree we should have something similar in place for any use of force.

And for emergencies, a quick, established chain of command that ensures one single person is not responsible for the use of U.S. forces.

But I don't see Congress proposing anything like that. Right now they just want to bask in the limelight and make it appear they really care about America by showing how much they disdain the President.

We should get them off their lazy asses and get to work on something!

[WillyT]

32. Agreed !!!

[condoleeza]

51. And those thorough investigations are almost always ended with a finding that the police

used reasonable force. I live in Portland, OR. it has been a problem for years here. The police can get away with anything, unless they're found with child porn on a computer.

[quakerboy]

58. You might want to revise that

There will be an investigation. Adding the word thorough is often a bit misleading. Cops regularly shoot and are cleared despite any indication of a lack of justification. This is part of the problem we have in our country today. A severe lack of consequences for any police action, up to and including murder.

[jazzimov]

11. that has nothing to do with the drone argument.

Thanks for paying, try again.

And educate yourself in the process so you don't waste everyone's time, please.

[WillyT]

17. Said The New Guy Who Meant To Say "Playing"...

You are quite welcome to put me on "Ignore" so I don't... "waste your time".

[jazzimov]

37. Thanks for pointing out my keyboard "misstroke"

for, indeed, I did mean to say "playing" but missed the "l".

Thanks for also denigrating me as the "new guy" as if that means "I have nothing valuable to add" which just shows your own prejudice and ignorance.

And thank you for inviting me to put you on "ignore", although I refer not to filter people's opinions. I would rather be able to read everyone's post in case I feel the need to point out fallacies in your logic. Even if those falacies are so obvious that I feel they are a "waste of time".

[WillyT]

38. Well Good For You !!!

I don't put anybody on ignore either.

I prefer to see it all.

[Melinda]

52. Kindly speak for yourself, please. WillyT may be a plain speaker, but his words are clear.

And speaking for myself alone, he's on point. As usual. Willy's a well known long term poster and he makes MY DU experience enjoyable. Kick back and relax - you might learn to enjoy the the ride too.

Assertiveness is welcomed by many here while aggressiveness is another matter entirely...

Welcome to DU and I (speaking again only for myself) enjoy your stay.

Peace.

[Arctic Dave]

2. The word "imminent" has been watered down so much that it has lost it's value.

One would think that it would refer to a last minute do or die situation but instead become the word of dick cheney and his "1%" doctrine.

Imminent being, maybe sometime down the road they "might" be up to no good.

[The Magistrate]

3. And Such Evil Presidents, Sir, Will Act As They Will, Whatever Law Or Precedent There May Be

[stevenleser]

5. I agree. The point is, its up to we the people not to elect Evil Presidents. That is the answer to

the question posed by some "What happens when a Republican President is elected..."

You make sure that never happens. That is part of the reason why you cannot vote for a third party candidate and you cannot stay home and not vote if the Democratic nominee happens not to be all the things one wishes they were.

[freshwest]

21. ^^^There it is^^^Don't stay home and let others elect extremists^^^

Last edited Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:55 PM - Edit history (1)

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

45. But "We, the People" did not elect George W. Bush

More of us voted for Al Gore than voted for Bush. Yet Bush was the one who got into the White House, despite the protests.

[stevenleser]

47. The fact that it was close enough to steal is too close.

We also have a responsibility not to elect the repug florida state legislators that voted to give Florida's electoral votes to Bush regardless of the recount and regardless of the SCOTUS vote.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

50. It was close enough to steal because of one state

A state that was governed by Bush's brother and where the votes were being counted by his campaign co-chair. A state where a handful of people were allowed to disrupt the vote-counting process in at least one key city. A state where tens of thousands were indiscriminately expunged from voter rolls. A state where a key judge refused to review ballots that he, himself, had ordered, and who later accepted (and was subsequently shamed into declining) an invitation to join a freeper party in South Carolina. And as a result of all of this conflict of interest and even outright chicanery, the state, and by default, the White House, was awarded to the loser.

We can do what we can in our respective states. Goodness knows, I have always voted for the most liberal candidate (in nearly all cases, the Democrat, but a few 3rd party candidates in state races when there was a conservative Democrat and no Republican challenger) since 1978. But I have no control over how the local voting goes in Florida, or any of 48 other states. And very little control over what happens in my own state. If what happened in Florida happens again some time down the road, who can stop it?

[stevenleser]

64. No, several states were too close. Florida got the focus. NH, TN and NM were also close

NH was 48-47 for 'W', Tennessee was 51-47 for 'W' and New Mexico was 47.91-47.85 for Gore. Ohio was also under 4 percent difference.

If the people of the ountry vote to give the power of the Presidency to someone who is going to misuse it, and they vote people into the house and senate who will not take him to task for that misuse, nothing can be done.

Its ultimately up to the people of the country.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

66. Florida got the focus because it was the last state to be "decided"

Also, because of all the shenanigans that were happening with both the voting and the vote-counting.

The American people, as a whole, voted for Al Gore as their president. Their will was thwarted, first by the crooks, liars, and scoundrels in Florida, and then by a very biased US Supreme Court.

What can, or will, the people of the US do if they vote, as a whole, for one candidate, but the other, lesser, candidate slips in yet again?

[Recursion]

6. When people make that argument about gun control here, they get smacked down

I don't think that's an excuse to concede unlimited power to the Executive.

[The Magistrate]

12. Different Fields And Applications, Sir

What is claimed by 'Team NRA' types is that since a law may not be obeyed, it is pointless or wrong to have the law.

What is claimed in relation to action by the Executive against a citizen in arms against the government is that a person willing to mis-use power will need a precedent in order to mis-use power, or will only mis-use power if a precedent exists.

When you reverse the flow, the character of the thing changes.

[TheKentuckian]

48. So let them do it without sanction in the law, outside the will of the people.

Further, when they do so they should be held accountable and answer to the people both directly in electing such a person and like minds and via Congress and as appropriate the Court.

If their actions outside the power lawful granted by the people then they should bear the brunt and if they have acted in extraordinary circumstances in good stewardship then they will be not only exonerated but probably celebrated.

You should also admit that a they will do what they do attitude is fostering a bad environment bordering on open invitation to abuse. What element do you expect to attract under such open ended terms?

What society could we aspire to based on such logic? How do you think law works? It isn't a magic spell that prevents bad actors.

[The Magistrate]

49. Personally, Sir, I Recognize Arguments Of Necessity

I do not think extraordinary, quasi-legal or extra-legal actions are appropriate where the civil law of the United States is in full effect. I can see circumstances arising, however, in which things I do not approve of might reasonably seem to be necessary.

Some things, it seems to me, are better left on a 'wink and nod' basis, rather than being codified into law and formal institutions. That latter road is much more likely to lead to future twisting and abuse. Look at how 'anti-terrorism' statutes have been twisted to apply to environmental activists, or at the fact that the FISA court has not denied a single request for a wire-tap in its history. When people are operating in a legal 'dead zone', they retain some awareness they are on shaky ground, therefore often are more likely to tread carefully.

[TheKentuckian]

53. My point exactly. Those thoughts cannot occupy the same time and space with

if they are going to abuse such power, then no law or precedent will stop them.

Law and precedent present obstacle and recourse, you don't remove them and trust that the right people hold office alone.

[The Magistrate]

60. No, Sir, Very Far From Your Poiint

Codification in statute can be dangerous, making the exceptional routine, and inviting persons to twist the text into ever more recondite shapes.

It remains the case that a person who will abuse power will do so; a person who will not abuse power will not, whatever the state of precedent and statute.

[TheKentuckian]

62. So it is back to no need for laws because those who will break them will break them regardless?

It is one way or the other.

Why bother with silly enumeration of rights and limitation on powers, those who will disregard them won't pause, right?

Who needs legislators and courts? We can just have a termed God Emperor with absolute and unquestioned power to do what they will? If they are a poor lord and master then in the next election (if those are complied with by the Lord God) we get a new one.
Why not?

[The Magistrate]

63. If You Cannot Follow The Point After Repetition, Sir, There is Nothing I Can Do

The key element is the character of the person wielding power, not any legal or precedential frame-work within which that person's wielding of power is supposedly confined. There are no guarantees only persons of good character will be placed in office; no system of government ever has, or ever could, offer that guarantee. There is no check on a person's willingness to abuse power save whatever internal stopping points that person may have; law and even social norms are useless against a person of sufficient ruthlessness, doubly so if that person has some popular following, and doubled again if that person is acting in a situation of threat and crisis. There are a number of illusions attending the concept of Constitutional government, present from its founding, and the idea that law restrains government action without reference to the character of the actor in office is one of them. To put it short and blunt:so far, we have been lucky, not good....

[TheKentuckian]

67. No repetition will not move me toward the philosophy. Following and buying are not the same thing.

Nor do I think we have particularly fortunate in the character of our leaders, many have been odious. I believe checks and balances have mitigated some excesses and having them in place also allows correction and tempers inclination toward abuse which means bad actors experience systemic friction and can even be exposed and potentially dealt with. Roadblocks to rule should always be in place, no blank checks, no unquestioned actions, division of powers, and of course prosecution for criminality.

I believe in making the road long and winding with speed bumps, there is no perfect mousetrap but that does not mean no mousetraps and it does mean constant vigilance that is a responsibility of citizenship.
Self governance demands every effort or luck runs out much easier and probably in the twinkling of an eye. One is almost sure to fail if they refuse to try and more than a bit more likely to have bad results than due diligence.

The best efforts can end in calamity but no effort almost always does. Put as many filters as can plausibly be put into place and then pray, don't start there after picking your least bad option in a horse race.

[bubbayugga]

4. replace drone strike with assassinate.

No president has ever had that constitutional authority.

[Recursion]

7. And even "assassinate with the military"

I can't stress that enough: this is not about Federal uses of force in general, but specifically use of Federal force that is currently by law restricted to outside of the US, like the military and CIA.

[jazzimov]

14. Actually, if you read the Act passed by the Congress

they pretty much authorized the President to do whatever he wanted to do to battle this "threat".

It can be challenged and eventually escalated to the SCOTUS, but you have to prove that you were personally damaged - and if it were private, you wouldn't know if you were unconstitutionally challenged until you were dead.

President Bush got his Congress to give him the power to kill whomever he wanted. He didn't expect to see Obama elected.

[OnyxCollie]

42. Uh, no.

The AUMF reads:

“use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations
or persons....”

Please explain how Abdulrahman al-Awlaki "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons....”

He was six years old when 9/11 happened.

[frylock]

43. nobody expects the spanish inquisition..

and, evidently, many DUers don't expect a republican to ever be elected president.

[Honeycombe8]

8. Of course the fed. govt can do that. Pres. Kennedy did it ...

Lyndon Johnson did it. The citizens in the south were forced to accept integration and the civil rights of minorities.

The local and state governments did not cooperate, by the way. They were part of the problem.

It is the federal government's first duty to protect the country, whether the danger comes from outside or inside.

[Recursion]

10. Kennedy and LBJ were enforcing Federal court orders

That's within their legal power; they were enforcing Federal law as duly adjudicated. And actually in Alabama's case, Wallace formally (but quietly) requested the Guard show up because he wanted that picture taken.

[Honeycombe8]

19. There was a law, but no court orders specifically for the actions taken,

as I recall.

[Recursion]

26. Not sure about Little Rock (and wasn't that Ike?) but the AL district court issued an order

And I must be getting my Wallace timing mixed up, because that was June of '63 so it was still JFK.

[Honeycombe8]

33. There were orders (laws) requiring AL to comply with

letting some Af. American kids into school or whatever. But there was no court order for the actions that the federal government took....Kennedy sent down the National Guard to force the citizenry and the state to allow the kids into school (or whatever the issue was)....and that was gonna happen, even if physical force was necessary. Kennedy couldn't allow a federal law to be disobeyed like that. He used his power to enforce federal law and protect its citizens' rights.

Johnson did, too.

The difference with drone strikes, however, might be that drone strikes might be done in secret. The National Guard actions were done out in the open, of course, and people knew ahead of time.

Also, on 9/11...do you have any doubt that the fed govt would've shot down one of the planes, had they known what was going to happen? Fighters had one of the planes in their sights, and I believe Cheney had given orders to do just that, if certain things happened? I forget exactly. I remember hearing that the pilot was confused and had to get the orders again...the pilot didn't know what was going on. But that didn't happen...I forget what happened. But our govt would've shot down that plane, with innocent civilians aboard, to save more civilians.

[Recursion]

39. Each southern state had to have a post-Brown case filed in their Federal court district

to enforce Brown.

Mississippi's was finally settled in IIRC 1998. Oy.

[randome]

13. Have a quick, well-established review for such cases.

The same type of fast action -and review- that goes into intercepting missiles headed for the country.

[reformist2]

24. We need clearer statements from Brennan, Holder, and Obama on this.

[randome]

25. I doubt ANY statement will satisfy the likes of Paul.

Instead of relying on one person's spoken testimony, Congress needs to propose legislation to deal with the issue. They won't because it's easier to stand in the spotlight and pretend they give a damn rather than doing the actual work of SHOWING they give a damn.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Bingo. That's exactly the issue.

It's amazing to me that so many don't see the danger in totally unchecked power. The Founders worked hard t o prevent this.

[Recursion]

16. It's even backwards in some ways: drones could be used pursuant to a court order

or legislative authorization, or at request of local authorities, as part of a larger law enforcement effort. The issue here is the legal ability of one person to make that decision.

[darkangel218]

54. +1000

[ProSense]

20. And

"Forget drones. Replace "drone" with "sniper" in every mental scene you're constructing. "

...his argument is still bullshit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470090

[X_Digger]

23. Exactly so.

It's interesting that so many folks have missed that point- military & Posse Comitatus

[quaker bill]

27. Kennedy sent the national guard to enforce desegregation

I don't recall anyone being shot, but the troops were armed. When he nationalized the national guard and deployed them, it was pretty much using military force on US soil. It certainly could have resulted in people being shot dead, but the other side backed down. I recall being pretty happy that he did it, but was young at the time.

[Recursion]

29. Per the order of the US District Court of the Northern District of Alabama

One of the expressed purposes of the National Guard is to restore order in lawless situations, which Wallace was clearly making Alabama into as ruled by a Federal court.

[quaker bill]

56. It is pretty clear that they could have shot people

if required to restore the rule of law. I don't recall that they needed to open fire anywhere.

[MotherPetrie]

28. K&R. It's the message, not the messenger, that's important.

[metalbot]

31. Had the same message been delivered by a Democatic Senator in 2007

That message would have met wide acclaim here.

[Recursion]

40. Paul said that

"2007 Obama would have been filibustering with me."

[Common Sense Party]

30. Send in the drones.

Aren't we rich?
Are we quite fair?
You there below me on the ground,
Me in mid-air..
Where are the drones?

Isn't it strange?
Why don't you agree?
I keep taking them out
With total impunity
Where are the drones?
Send in the drones.

Just when I'd stopped obeying laws,
Finally knowing the life that I wanted was yours.
Making my entrance again with my usual flair
Sort of sure of my sight lines...
Then no one is there.

Don't you love force?
My farce, your fear.
I thought that you'd want what I dropped...
Sorry, my dear!
And where are the drones
Send in the drones
Don't bother, they're here.

Ain't life a bitch?
Then a red smear...
Buffing my peace prize sure feels rather weird.
And where are the drones?
There ought to be more drones...
Well, maybe next appropriation year.

[Demo_Chris]

36. EPIC! n/t

[whatchamacallit]

65. Brilliant!

Made my day.

[ProSense]

34. You should rethink your theory because

Paul and Cruz apparently have other plans: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470744

[Zax2me]

35. Fairly certain it IS about drones.

The idiot has gone on for hours talking about nothing else.
Sometimes it just is what it is.

[SHRED]

41. Kent State

[Recursion]

44. That was the governor of Ohio

That's not a Federal issue.

[bhikkhu]

46. I imagine the president has that responsibility

...and, of course, it would be the absolute last resort of any sane president.

In any case, we have thousands of armed local police, who have the right and responsibility to use deadly force if necessary in their judgement. I only know a few policemen, but I have to trust that they are all well trained and take their responsibilities seriously.

We also have an FBI that is the law enforcement arm of the federal government, which is also many thousands of armed agents with the right and responsibility to use deadly force if necessary in their judgement. I imagine they take that pretty seriously, and I haven't heard of any likely abuses lately.

And that's not even mentioning the "war on terror", which started the recent controversies. I'm prone to say, even when it was bush in charge, that the responsibility to protect carries with it several imperatives, including good judgement. I don't imagine that putting someone in a position of responsibility and then not trusting him with the power of the office, then putting up some legal roadblocks to tie his hands, while still expecting him to carry out his responsibilities...anyway, stupid idea, it doesn't work.

[treestar]

55. It's the same problem that caused the War Powers Act

Modern technology is such that we have a window where we could be destroyed if some entity could not act immediately.

A threat of attack on our soil is not that real for the U.S., but is still hypothetical. Every country has that issue.

In the Founder's day, or in Lincoln's day, Congress could meet to deliberate even if for a few hours.

When they keep using the term "against a citizen" they are trying to rile us up. Would force used on 911 to do something to fight back be considered "against" U.S. citizens? In fact, we were criticizing Bush here because the jets were not scrambled the way they would have expected to have been - check any MIHOP or LIHOP theory.

It's just so dishonest that the far right suddenly has a problem with the due process rights of someone trying to attack us.

And yes we could expect President Michelle Bachman, like we expected President George Bush, to do something to protect us in these scenarios. There is political pressure against their using those powers to install themselves as dictators - if not, why didn't Bush/Cheney do it?

[Niceguy1]

57. it is only

A distraction because it is our Guy in office.

[Zax2me]

59. If bush were still President Paul would not filibuster and there would be no drone support here.

Should be no support no matter who is President.

[Recursion]

61. You don't think Paul would have filibustered Bush?

I think he and his dad are pretty consistent, no matter who's in the white house.