Rand Paul supports "swift drone action" based on a "reasonable suspicion" of an "imminent danger"

[ProSense]

Sen. Paul Introduces Bill to Protect Americans Against Unwarranted Drone Surveillance

Jun 12, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Sen. Rand Paul introduced legislation into the Senate that protects individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly known as drones. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 will protect Americans' personal privacy.

"Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued. Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics," Sen. Paul said.

The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 also:

1. Prohibits the use of drones by the government except when a warrant is issued for its use in accordance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

2. Includes the following exceptions:

1) patrol of national borders;

2) when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life;"

3) high risk of a terrorist attack

3. Allows any person to sue the government for violating this Act.

4. Specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this Act can be used/admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil, or regulatory action.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=545

Holy shit! Ted Cruz said he's planning on introducing legislation...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470744

Rand Paul: "If the President is not going to kill them, why won't he say he's not going to kill"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470090

[TwilightGardener]

1. In other words, what Holder said. Good work, Prosense. Whole thing was a farce.

[ProSense]

3. Holder didn't

...make any argument about "swift drone action" based on a "reasonable suspicion."

<...>

Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president order the use of lethal military force inside the US is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter:

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.

- more -

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/obama-admin-says-it-can-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil

[Robb]

2. This is a disappointment.

Not to me, of course. But the Stopped Clockers ("I don't agree with everything Ron/Rand says, but he's got something here!11!!&quot will haz sads.

[ProSense]

4. Rand Paul, like his father,

spends all his time making loud noises to gain popularity as he pushes through legislation that runs counter to his public stance.

In 2011, he proposed a budget that eliminated several goverment agencies and gutted social spending, but it requested $30 billion more for Defense that Obama's request.

[Romulox]

5. "Imminent threat" has been the standard for the use of deadly force in English Common Law since

before the formation of this country.

I'm not sure you understand the statement you quote.

[ProSense]

7. Oh,

"I'm not sure you understand the statement you quote."

...I understand it fully, but it's good to know you support the legislation.

[HereSince1628]

6. AKA The Moonshine Still Protection Act of 2013?

Why preclude unmanned aircraft from doing what manned aircraft and satellites already do?

[ProSense]

8. "Paul acknowledged that US drone strikes have proven effective...

Paul acknowledged that US drone strikes have proven effective in places like Pakistan and Yemen, including a strike on US-born radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, whom Paul branded a traitor.

But "if you're going to kill non-combatants, people eating dinner, in America, there have to be some rules," he added.

http://www.alternet.org/progressive-wire/senators-filibuster-cia-pick-ends-after-12-hrs

[sibelian]

9. oooook.

guess that's all fine, then.

[sadbear]

10. He doesn't like a black guy having that kind of power.

Oh, did I just go there?

[geek tragedy]

11. Rand Paul introduces legislation to require government to obey already existing law.

Except for the part where he decides drones are worse than satellites, wiretaps, helicopters, and government letters to ISP providers.