Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and some media have conflated this use of force issue way beyond the basics.

[pinto]

All three have intentionally or unintentionally introduced the words drones, preemptive, targeted and others into the discussion. Paul and Cruz especially seem to be trying to put the Administration on the defensive, i.e. having to reply to things they never actually said.

The basic situation is this - does the Administration have the authority to use lethal force to thwart violent attacks against the government, the country and its citizens? On American soil. The answer is yes.

And yes, drones are increasingly used for surveillance operations. They are not weaponized. Conflating the two undermines the needed debate about surveillance in general by introducing the "government is out to kill you" hyperbole. It parallels the "government will come and take away your guns" meme that crops up in gun legislation discussions.

Red herrings, both.

Where the preemptive concept came from, I'm not sure. Yet I see it mentioned. Who in the Administration ever mentioned "preemptive actions"? Another red herring.

Does the Administration "target" individuals? Certainly. Profiling, which is what it is, needs a good long look. But floating the idea that the government is going to target and preemptively kill someone via a weaponized drone in your neighborhood is bizarre, imo.

Paul, Cruz and some in the media are acting irresponsibly in all of this.

[jeff47]

1. I believe some see it as a backdoor way to stop the drone strikes overseas (nt)

[baldguy]

12. And some believe space aliens in black helicopters are coming to get their guns.

We don't stop every function of the federal govt to allow them to have their say.

[The Magistrate]

2. Well Said, My Friend

[JDPriestly]

3. The answer is simple:

The President simply needs to respond that he will comply with the Constitution should a question arise as to whether force or the suspension of the right of habeas corpus of any kind should be used.

That answers the question. It is simple. The Constitution is very clear on this:

Article I, section 9

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section9

That ends the discussion. That limits Congress' and the president's authority to suspend habeas. That should silence critics, those who have legitimate concerns as well as those looking for political points.

[pinto]

6. Good point. Good clear source - the Constitution.

Though I assume there would be discussions about the meaning of "rebellion", "invasion" and "public safety".

Comes with the territory, imo. I happen to like some of the open ended standards in the Constitution. I think it was a compromise meant to be interpreted over time.

[graham4anything]

4. President Obama has roped the dopes again. And they keep falling for it.

It is amazing how easy it is.

It is like President Obama doing this-
He is quicker than they are.
He moves this way, they go that way
He moves that way, they go this way

Finally they come at him from all sides, and one and the other is in close range
He darts out of the way
and they ram into each other, thereby knocking themselves out silly.

It is almost like a cartoon over and over and over

He is the Road Runner. They are the Coyote.

Checkmate on a daily basis.

You just have to be quick to catch it.

It is like he is in warp speed
And they are in slo-mo

Yes, he is that great.

[asjr]

5. Each day that passes I am more sure than anything

that all of us are appearing in an unending soap opera. We are not just observing one--we are all in it. I have never in all my years seen the likes of our "Representatives" and "Senators" in Washington battling each other rather than do what they are there for. We as citizens have no import. I am ashamed of them. McCain and Graham called it right about Rand Paul, but only because it made them sound and look saner than Paul.

[pmorlan1]

8. Dog and Pony Show

I thought the McCain & Graham speeches on the Senate floor today were nothing but a dog and pony show designed to hold onto power. They used so many red herrings I lost count.

[pmorlan1]

7. Background on Filibuster

If you are looking for background on why there was a filibuster, Greenwald had a great column about it in February.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/obama-brennan-paul-assassinations-filibuster

[Avalux]

9. Kabuki theater.

And the media promotes and rewards it. Absurdity keeps getting propped up as reality.

[blazeKing]

10. Actually you got the basic situation wrong

It wasn't about stopping an imminent attack like a hijacking or a guy with a bomb. That's settled, force can be used. It was about Americans targeted who are just at their house or out getting some food or going to work but are on a kill list for whatever reason. We have 5th amendment rights here.

Frankly, you would NOT be saying this if Bush were in office. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it. It disappoints me when we act like Repubs and take their shitty positions just because Obama takes them.

[pinto]

11. There is no "kill list" imo. And I would be saying this, irregardless of who held the office.

And who are the Americans you claim are targeted "at their house or out getting some food or going to work but are on a kill list for whatever reason." ?

Frankly, this kind of hyperbole benefits none of us in my opinion. It sidetracks discussions from the basics of the issues at hand. And they are big issues. I don't presume to know what your or anyone else's position is. I only know mine. And it doesn't depend on an Obama presidency.

I support him, voted for him, donated to his campaign. But I make up my mind on my own. Thanks.