Should the Senate pass the Cruz, Paul drone bill?

[ProSense]

Here is the proposal:

Cruz, Paul Introduce Bill to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) today introduced legislation to prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat.

“Our Constitution restrains government power,” Cruz said. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The Commander in Chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.”

Key bill text:
The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=339952

12 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	6 (50%)
	No
	6 (50%)
	Not sure
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[jberryhill]

1. It's like the umpteenth ban on federal funding of abortion

Did you know there is no law against the president strangling puppies?

[ProSense]

4. Full circle, and then some. n/t

[pscot]

2. It seems like a good idea

but the sponsors are a pair of fruitloops.

[ProSense]

5. It really should get a full debate

and as much exposure as Paul's filibuster.

[cthulu2016]

3. No, it sounds like bad law

Even if I agree with the general sentiment it doesn't sound like worthwhile law, as described.

The exception sounds like standard justifiable homicide language... President? Heck, I could already kill someone with a drone legally in those circumstances... if I had a drone. I could also kill them with a gun, a knife, a weed-whacker... I could use lethal force.

So what purpose does the bill serve?

Political in nature, and not needed or useful as law.

[jberryhill]

6. Why does Rand Paul support assaination from manned aircraft?

It runs into the classic enumeration problem.

[ProSense]

10. Adding to the arsenal, this

"Why does Rand Paul support assaination from manned aircraft?"

...bill allows for all that, and the bill's wording ensures that drones are now part of that arsenal.

Where is everybody?

[ProSense]

7. Well,

"So what purpose does the bill serve? "

It reiterates Holder's two letters and adds a further justification to basically state: The President can't kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, but the CIC does have the power to protect Americans from an imminent threat (add: "or serious bodily harm&quot .

Can you imagine the bill-singing ceremony?

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. Why not? Broken clock and all that...

Imminent is a very specific word in law.

[ProSense]

9. Yes,

"Imminent is a very specific word in law."

...why not reiterate existing law? That will clear up everything.

[jberryhill]

13. Okay, so...

If there is a specific law limiting one instrument of lethal force to the existing legal framework, but only addressing drones, then can we safely assume there will be no restriction on cruise missiles, tanks, mortars, or Viking battle hammers?

[Egalitarian Thug]

18. What a brilliant retort.

I just hope I never have rely on you for any representation. You should fit right in back there in DC.

[jberryhill]

26. Would you like to discuss the topic, or me?

Perhaps you might choose the topic, because your opinion of my character is of utterly no concern to me or anyone else.

[Egalitarian Thug]

33. You mean the topic you attempt to dismiss as inconsequential?

As for your character, you display display none at all. Just another useless conservadem busily making the world a worse place every day.

[ProSense]

34. I don't know,

"As for your character, you display display none at all. Just another useless conservadem busily making the world a worse place every day. "

...this isn't going to remotely make the world a less "worse place," that is unless you think expanding the President's authority to kill Americans is a good thing.

[jberryhill]

35. This bill says the following by implication

1. It's okay to kill US citizens outside of the US by drones, for any reason.

2. It's okay to kill US citizens in the US using anything other than drones, and also for any reason.

That's what this statute says by singling out drones as the sole lethal mechanism which cannot be used against US citizens except in case of imminent threat.

Unfortunately, you have too much personal hostility to get past that in order to see how this bill can be objectively interpreted.

[ProSense]

37. Adam Serwer agrees

though he calls the bill pointless:

GOP Senators Introduce Pointless Drone Bill

By Adam Serwer

Not wanting to take Attorney General Eric Holder's word for it that the US government won't be sending deadly flying robots to kill its own citizens on American soil, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced a bill that would "prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat."

The bill all but disarms the US government, leaving it with few options for lethal force against citizens other than guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force.

Unless you're not in the United States, or you're an "imminent threat." In that case, the government can drone away.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/gop-senators-introduce-bill-banning-domestic-drone-assassinations

Use of drones to kill Americans not OK "if they do not represent an imminent threat."

Killing Americans who don't pose an "imminent threat" OK if the weapons of choice are "guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force."

Use of drones to kill anyone outside the United States OK.

The President should appease critics of his drone policy and sign this into law.

[ProSense]

19. Yes, and just imagine

"If there is a specific law limiting one instrument of lethal force to the existing legal framework, but only addressing drones, then can we safely assume there will be no restriction on cruise missiles, tanks, mortars, or Viking battle hammers?"

...that arsenal is available for killing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat, only drones are off limits:

The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat.

Drones are also the weapon of choice for killing a citizen not "located in the United States."

The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States.

Drones for killing those who pose an imminent threat:

The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual.

Talk about a slippery slope.

[winter is coming]

11. I'd rather see the Senate bill Cruz and Paul for droning. n/t

[Zorra]

46. Nice play on words!

[Warren DeMontague]

12. How about we worry about the prison cells full of pot smokers, first?

I mean, there are plenty of actual unconstitutional and ridiculous injustices we could fret over, before coming up with imaginary ones.

[LeftInTX]

14. I don't trust anything coming from Ted Cruz

This is trouble. I see nothing but nefarious coming from him. He has got something really bad up his sleeve.

If it was just Rand Paul, it would be what it is...but Ted has got something bad up his sleeve, namely to hurt Democrats. He's evil and has no morals.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. No because the sponsors of the bill have an ulterior motive

Any bill with Cruz's name on it should be rejected outright.

[ProSense]

25. LOL!

It's true.

[jmg257]

16. Drones bad, gun ship OK? Stupid law that does nothing new.

Drones are part of military forces, and already controlled by USC S332/333 use of Militia and armed forces.

[randome]

27. Exactly. Fuck Rand Paul with Ted Cruz.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Yes, based purely on the "key bill text"

I haven't read the entire bill, might be nasties in there.

[ProSense]

40. There are

"I haven't read the entire bill, might be nasties in there."

...a bunch of "nasties in there."

GOP Senators Introduce Pointless Drone Bill

By Adam Serwer

Not wanting to take Attorney General Eric Holder's word for it that the US government won't be sending deadly flying robots to kill its own citizens on American soil, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced a bill that would "prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat."

The bill all but disarms the US government, leaving it with few options for lethal force against citizens other than guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force.

Unless you're not in the United States, or you're an "imminent threat." In that case, the government can drone away.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/gop-senators-introduce-bill-banning-domestic-drone-assassinations

Use of drones to kill Americans not OK "if they do not represent an imminent threat."

Killing Americans who don't pose an "imminent threat" OK if the weapons of choice are "guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force."

Use of drones to kill anyone outside the United States OK.

The President should appease critics of his drone policy and sign this into law.

[onenote]

20. and if instead of drones, what if the weapon is a missile or a gun

Despite the purported "savings clause" in the final sentence, this legislation inevitably opens the question as to whether there is a different (i.e. more lax) standard for using means other than drones to kill citizens on US soil.

Which is stupid.

Which isn't a surprise given who the authors are.

The only thing that's surprising (and maybe it isn't surprising) is how many DUers don't see what a worthless (or worse) piece of crap this bill is.

[ProSense]

42. Yup. n/t

[JI7]

21. i don't understand why it should matter what citizen they are

[ProSense]

22. Might have something to do

"i don't understand why it should matter what citizen they are"

...with Paul's views on border security.

<...>

In this Act--
(1) the term `drone' means any powered, aerial vehicle that--

(A) does not carry a human operator;
(B) uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
(C) can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
(D) can be expendable or recoverable; and
(E) can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload; and

(2) the term ‘law enforcement party’ means a person or entity authorized by law, or funded by the Government of the United States, to investigate or prosecute offenses against the United States.

<...>

SEC. 3. PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.

Except as provided in section 4<...>

SEC. 4. EXCEPTIONS.

This Act does not prohibit any of the following:

(1) PATROL OF BORDERS- The use of a drone to patrol national borders to prevent or deter illegal entry of any persons or illegal substances.

(2) EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES- The use of a drone by a law enforcement party when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, exigent circumstances exist when the law enforcement party possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life is necessary.

(3) HIGH RISK- The use of a drone to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization, when the Secretary of Homeland Security determines credible intelligence indicates there is such a risk.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3287/text

[JI7]

23. looks like he thinks it would be ok to use drones to kill someone

entering the country illegally.

[ProSense]

30. Arizona Republicans' dream bill. n/t

[Peter cotton]

24. No.

[morningfog]

28. No, it doesn't go far enough.

[ProSense]

41. "Far enough"?

It opens Pandora's Box.

It's interesting that there is little (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2482314) to no comment on this bill from those who spent the last couple of days lauding Paul.

[morningfog]

43. I loathe Paul. And, this bill doesn't go far enough.

If a new bill is to be passed, it should be drafted to protect US citizens anywhere in the world. It should also reign in the unitary executive on acts of war and repeal the AUMF.

[ProSense]

47. His bill is a nightmare filled with loopholes. n/t

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2013, 06:08 PM - Edit history (1)

[Comrade_McKenzie]

29. Paul AND Cruz... automatically tells me my opinion. nt

[Cha]

31. WTF

“Our Constitution restrains government power,” Cruz said. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The Commander in Chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.”

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul want drone language in CR

"Ah, so Rand Paul is not done blathering on about drones.

You see, I was under the impression, wrongly in this case, that all the tea party dude wanted was a note from the AG saying the president could not use drones against non enemy combatants domestically, which he got.

Now that he has garnered that little moment of fame that has his followers swooning, he wants to put into a continuing resolution attached to a spending bill that would prohibit what the AG has already said is illegal.

This is what happens when bad conspiracy theorists get a hold of a notion and get some free publicity out of it. Is this really what Kentucky sent this guy to the senate to do? Waste weeks prattling on about things that have never happened, that he knows will never happen, and once he gets his little note will prattle on about it forever?

Why does this garbage always get tacked onto bills that have nothing to do with it? Left and right, they both do it, know that a bill will pass so they shove a little chunk of legislation for the nutjjobs that follow them.

Fear not though people! Though he has not made the news for an outrageous statement in almost a week, Ted Cruz is jumping into the mix, getting himself a bit of free publicity out of it.

Hmmm. Cruz and Paul. Two peas in a pod when it comes to pining for the spotlight."

MORE http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/292932-ted-cruz-rand-paul-want-drone-language-cr.html

“Be proud to be a decent American rather than just a wanker whipping up fear.”

thanks ProSense

[creeksneakers2]

32. Does imminent mean in the very near future?

Because there are some who we know will kill but but don't know exactly when. A situation could come up, as it often does when hunting terrorists, that a rare opportunity to take out a threat comes up that won't last.

[moondust]

36. Probably not.

Washington has a way of passing half-measures and considering its work done. The use of drones needs a comprehensive approach to oversight and accountability no matter where they are used. This Cruz/Paul thing is predictably self-centered and very narrow in scope. It says: "We don't care about blowing up the rest of the world without giving them a chance to surrender or explain their actions; we only care about saving our own asses."

Tweety actually had a good segment on drones Friday with Ron Reagan and Cynthia Tucker who noted some of the issues that need to be addressed--preferably long before there's somebody like Cheney or McCain making up and executing kill lists.

[jberryhill]

38. If the policy doesn't fit on a bumper sticker...

...then there are those who will not be able to deal with it.

[ProSense]

39. Which means this should be popular:

Drone killings: Just say no, unless...

[struggle4progress]

44. I dislike the suggestion the President has the right to kill unless Congress intervenes

The President, of course, has never claimed any right to blow away whomsoever he wants, and if he begins acting as if he has has lost his mind, there is more than one legal way to remove him from power, temporarily or permanently. Should he actually attempt cold-blooded murder of someone in a foreign country, there would be an enormous diplomatic response; and should he attempt the cold-blooded murder of an American on American soil, I think we may safely say that he would be impeached and removed from office and would very likely face criminal prosecution

It is perfectly clear that the President is not to be regarded as above the law, though he does have various powers most of us do not have, and it is perfectly clear that this particular President does not regard himself as being above the law

It is an extraordinarily bad idea for Congress to single out and enumerate a few particular things the President generally cannot do, especially when those are things everyone already agrees the President generally cannot do -- because that very act of enumerating will suggest that those few things are the only things forbidden to the President

[ProSense]

45. This issue,

"It is an extraordinarily bad idea for Congress to single out and enumerate a few particular things the President generally cannot do, especially when those are things everyone already agrees the President generally cannot do -- because that very act of enumerating will suggest that those few things are the only things forbidden to the President"

...like it or not, is going to be forever linked to Rand Paul's ridiculous filibuster.

The Filibuster’s Top 10 Winners and Losers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022484471