Why has no senator ever asked the AG to clarify if the president has the authority to order an F-16 to drop a JDAM on someone's house in Texas, or order the Navy to launch a cruise missile at a San Fran cafe, or order Seal Team 6 to raid a shack in Bowling Green?

We need answers to these very significant, not at all inane questions.

[Edited on March 7, 2013 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2013 12:43:32 PM

dp

[Edited on March 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2013 12:45:20 PM

When F-16 start being cheap enough that states and municipalities can fly them for law enforcement, when we start a proliferation of the technology, when F-16's start to be used frequently for law-enforcement in the US it will be a significant and not at all inane question for someone to ask.

The difference between those things and drone strikes is that 1) those are military and not law enforcement while drones are used as law enforcement, 2) that its clear that those are military action, 3) that those things are not currently being used or discussed to be used for law enforcement on domestic soil and 4) the justice department has never written a memo providing a legal justification for the use of F-16's to kill Americans on american soil. The position of this administration (and the last) is that drone strikes are not military action, and don't require the oversight that comes with that.

[Edited on March 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM. Reason : oh, one more]

3/7/2013 12:48:06 PM

Pretty sure no law enforcement agency has drones equipped with hellfire missiles. When they do, let's definitely talk.

Did I miss something? Has the debate shifted to whether or not blowing someone up with a missile or bomb could be justified as a "law enforcement" action?

3/7/2013 12:53:22 PM

you missed something, Rand Paul has always been asking for a clear position that we will not target americans on american soil

3/7/2013 12:55:41 PM

Oh, Ok well good on him then!

Wonder why no senator has ever asked the AG to clarify if the president can order an FBI marksmen to blow someone's head off in a San Fran cafe? As, you know, a law enforcement action.

v how is targeting someone with a rifle from a quarter mile away fundamentally different than targeting someone with a missile from 3 miles away?

And let's be clear, I'm certainly not arguing for use of drone strikes against citizens. Definitely not. I just think this whole filibuster was a complete waste of time and was just show time and rather unsubstantial. But I guess most filibusters are, so... whatever

[Edited on March 7, 2013 at 1:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2013 1:30:14 PM

^b/c i'm pretty sure that's already clearly stated as illegal.

3/7/2013 1:41:01 PM

at the very least he's shown people what a real filibuster looks like

3/7/2013 1:44:50 PM

Quote :

"v how is targeting someone with a rifle from a quarter mile away fundamentally different than targeting someone with a missile from 3 miles away? "

In your example regarding a San Fran cafe` I suppose the obviously problem would be collateral damage.

3/7/2013 2:39:39 PM

Well that was one of Rand's examples. But you're right.

So what about if the target is alone in their house in Bumfuck, KY?

3/7/2013 3:00:46 PM

What about a target that's alone? What's the question? Whether or not it's ok to shoot a target that is alone from outside his home?

Since he's in Bumfuck, then a local police likely doesn't exist. Depending on the target's profile, either a sheriff or the FBI just rolls up and arrests him.

3/7/2013 3:27:02 PM

Rand Paul believes ambiguity exists regarding the President's authority to order the FBI to use a UAV to fire a hellfire through the guy's front door to kill him, as a law enforcement action.

That's why he brought it up with the AG I presume.

3/7/2013 3:36:16 PM

Quote :

"Wonder why no senator has ever asked the AG to clarify if the president can order an FBI marksmen to blow someone's head off in a San Fran cafe? As, you know, a law enforcement action. "

1)because we already have clear guidelines and case law when its acceptable
2)no one is writing memos providing legal justification for assassinating Americans on American soil
3)this is obvious to you and you are being purposefully aaronburroish

3/7/2013 3:40:21 PM

Yes, I am being purposefully contrarian. But,

to me Rand Paul's concern isn't very worrying to me.

3/7/2013 3:46:46 PM

It might be a concern of yours if you were a practicing Muslim, or maybe someone who is openly and vocally critical of the government. Most people will not ever be accused of or mistaken to be a terrorist, but they may still want to establish now that drones won't and can't be used this way on American soil.

(then maybe we can start establishing that we shouldn't do it in other nations too)

3/7/2013 3:52:14 PM

Well you'll be happy to hear that the AG has confirmed what we knew all along, in fact the President does NOT have the legal authority to murder a citizen not engaged in combat/terrorism on American soil. Phew!

The much more interesting question would be, how does the government go about defining someone as being engaged in combat/terrorism?

[Edited on March 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2013 4:03:01 PM

Easy. Anyone who writes a newsletter can be executed without trial. Next question.

Example: Samir Khan from Charlotte, NC by the direct order of Barack Obama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Khan



[Edited on March 7, 2013 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2013 5:37:33 PM

the next interesting question is why someone who was encouraged to be a terrorist by FBI agents, and who only had the means to do so with financial support of and fake weapons provided by the FBI, why they should be prosecuted for their thought crimes

See: Washington DC Metro bombing plot, the New York City subway plot, the attempt to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower and dozens more that were organized by FBI agents to entrap "criminals". The Newburg 4 got 25 years in prison!

3/7/2013 5:43:29 PM

Thoughtcrime is my favorite sort of crime.

3/7/2013 5:45:23 PM

So you're telling me I had a 13 hour libertarian erection watching C-span/#IAMWITHRAND only to have Holder spoil all that lust with two sentences?

That mug hurts big time mane.

3/8/2013 12:08:38 AM

^this mug is one of the impressionable libertarian kids that grandpa McCain was talking about, yadig?

Just go watch Mr Smith Goes To Washington. It's much more fulfilling and believable.

3/8/2013 1:11:37 PM

why you gotta call names mane?

three pages of erudite debate down the drain and all you can add is some Mr. Smith ham and cheese?

Get real hombre.

3/8/2013 11:52:01 PM