Justice Department's legal case for drone strikes on Americans

I missed that happening. I've seen liberals on this board bash the Obama administration on certain issues and support him on others.

Since Obama himself is hardly a liberal president, I wouldn't think liberals owed him any particular allegiance.

 

There is no way in hell someone could support this. Yet somehow Basso with his stupid ass twitter posts and r****ded posts is pushing me to the other side.

Any president trying to authorize something like this needs to be impeached. I'm not a fan of Obama, the crazy teabagging nutjobs on here just make the san people look like they are.

 

No surprise.

 

A Devastating 26-Word Challenge to President Obama's Leadership

When Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, stopped by the Senate floor Wednesday to help out Rand Paul with his filibuster, he spoke for several minutes in the guise of asking a question. But his remarks can really be boiled down to one powerful sentence that I've transcribed:

Ponder the modesty of that claim. He is merely asking that American citizens be given the most basic information about their legal system: when they're lawfully subject to capital punishment.

What would possibly justify withholding it?

The mere fact that multiple U.S. Senators, civil liberties organizations and journalists are having to hound the Obama Administration for answers is a scandal. Promulgating the law is one of the most basic precursors of its legitimacy. Yet the bulk of Congress is as yet content with ignorance.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...llenge-to-president-obamas-leadership/273789/

The Atlantic also has an excellent summary of Rand Paul's arguments during the filibuster:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...filibuster-rand-paul-in-his-own-words/273787/

I agreed with most of what Rand Paul said - that's probably the first and last time that will ever happen.

 

I'm not opposed to drone strikes per se.

I am absolutely opposed to the administration's justification for strikes on Americans.

I'm not opposed to the U.S. killing terrorists even if they are Americans who've joined an enemy actively engaged with U.S. especially when that enemy has openly declared war.

 

it really comes down to the definition of terrorist and who defines it.

i know this, if anyone shoots at a drone they'll be labelled a terrorist not a revolutionary.

 

even if it is in self defense

Rocket River

 

The funny parts about this is that the chances of the government expending the $$$ required for a drone strike on Joe-Bob and Cletus are 0%. Yet Joe-Bob and Cletus are the ones most incensed about this.

 

two fundamental questions:

1. Would you object to a future President Cruz (humor me) having the same discretionary powers Obama has granted himself?
2. Would the rules currently in place have permitted the extrajudicial killing of Bill Ayers in 1970?

if the answer to the former is "no" and to the latter is "yes" then we have a significant problem.

 

1. No, I don't approve of the rationale Obama has taken for his administration.

2. No. Ayers was not part of a group that had openly declared war against the U.S. However if Ayers was killed while carrying out terrorist activities, I would not have had a problem with that.

 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/obf_LV8k1g4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

What does that mean?

Please be specific in your answer. Meaning is it what YOU believe it means, or someone else. Someone else could be the POTUS, Congress, the Constitution, the UN, the West, the Middle East, Ahmadinejad, the Pope, etc...

 

Just be glad you didn't hold your breath waiting for it. On second thought, it be nice if you had.

 

<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/content/4N4Z97118VVBVDBF/content_type/content_item/layout//playlist_cid//widget_type_cid/svp/read_more/1" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

 

^and this is why Republicans can't win presidential elections anymore. incompetence with technology. srsly.

 

This is all they had to say - I'm happy with this response. It is a shame it took so long for them to say it....

 

Rand Paul Filibuster Leaves Senate Democrats Struggling To Explain Absence

Most democrats declined to join Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in his filibuster of John Brennan's nomination to the post of CIA director. (Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON -- While many Senate Democrats said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) raised legitimate concerns about the Obama administration's drone program during his epic filibuster of John Brennan's nomination as CIA director, most of them were unable to explain why they didn't join him on the Senate floor.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was the only Democrat to join Paul and 14 other Republicans in a 13-hour filibuster Wednesday. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also took to the floor twice, but mostly to defend the U.S. government's authority to target American citizens in "extraordinary circumstances."

"I don't know, there's a lot of debates I don't join that I agree -- I've got stuff to do and was doing a lot of other things," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) told HuffPost when asked about his whereabouts the day before. "I think the question should be answered. I think [Sen.] Paul was generally right on it."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who launched the most recent old-fashioned "talking" filibuster before Paul's in 2010 against the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, said flatly that he never considered joining Paul's effort -- but added that the absence of most Democrats was a "good question."

"I'm working right now on many, many, other issues," Sanders said.

"Presumably you go down on the floor because you believe in something," he added, though he argued that the method Paul used to raise his questions and his timing weren't "particularly constructive."

The White House responded to Paul's concerns Thursday, when Press Secretary Jay Carney read a letter Attorney General Eric Holder sent to Paul at the top of his daily briefing.

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?'" Carney read. "The answer to that question is no."

Paul embraced the response, calling it a "victory."

"Hooray!" he told Fox News' Megyn Kelly after she read him Holder's letter for the first time on air. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question. So there is a result and a victory. Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she's been satisfied with the administration's response thus far, though she added that oversight of the drone program remains important.

She justified the lack of Democrats present on the floor by saying that many of them "weren't in the building," and that almost all of them were taken aback by Paul's use of the talking filibuster.

"We all were shocked Republicans were doing a real filibuster instead of a procedural filibuster that has been their standard operating procedure for the last two or three years," she said.

Some Democrats argued that the concerns over transparency extend beyond drones.

"I think there's a host of issues here, not just simply issues related to drones but related to overall powers to spy on Americans and to take action without any sort of check," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

"I think broadly I share the concerns of the amount of secrecy [and] I share the concerns about secret law with the FISA court making interpretations of common law language that we don't know what it means," he added.

Merkley, a leading advocate of filibuster reform who has championed the use of the talking filibuster, told HuffPost he didn't join the effort because he believes the president should be granted an up-or-down vote on cabinet nominees.

"I'm not supporting blocking the opportunity for that," he said. "But certainly the arguments that Rand Paul was making last night are legitimate ones and important ones to raise ... I salute his filibuster last night."

"Everyone's got a lot of priorities and people are busy," said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) "But it's an important debate. I think as we begin ... developing kind of a legal architecture around a set of difficult issues, it's going to be important that we all engage, but right now we need to get a CIA director in place."

Wyden, the lone joiner, said that he could only speak for himself when asked why more Democrats didn't join. "I thought it was an opportunity to demonstrate that on some of these key issues with respect to balance between liberty and security, there are progressives and conservatives that can find some common ground," he told reporters.

"I think you're going to start seeing the emergence of what I sometimes call around here a checks-and-balances caucus, and there'll be a lot of Democrats in it," Wyden added.

 

What I mean is if someone is planting a bomb in a civilian building and gets killed while doing it, then I don't have a problem with that.

What I keep coming back to is the American civil war. Those were American citizens who were fighting against the US govt. They didn't need a trial to be killed, they were killed because they were violently engaged with a group attacking the U.S. I don't have a problem if someone is killed while doing that.

 

I'm not happy with that response because this is coming from the same administration that still denies the drone program even exists.