Rand Paul does something I (mostly) approve of

[PLATO]

All terrorists who are part of any organization which has attacked the US or American citizens or installations, or declares itself to be at war or engaged in jihad against the US, etc. etc., then pretty much, yes. Drones are expensive, so are hellfires. It's not as if we're flicking them at every Abdul the goatherd in the world. If we miss or get the wrong guy, well, **** happens with any weapons delivery system.

Not sure that all those meet the definition of "war" wrt to the Constitution. As far as the expense being a deterent, that is not relevant to the argument for authority.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's relevant to the careful application of that authority. What constitutes war is undefined in the Constitution.

[DaShi]

John McCain in a rare moment of lucidity:

Rand Paul filibuster blasted by John McCain, Lindsey Graham
By: Kate Nocera
March 7, 2013 12:16 PM EST

While Republican senators flocked to the floor Wednesday night to support Sen. Rand Paul’s nearly 13-hour filibuster, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) did exactly the opposite on Thursday.

McCain quoted heavily from a Wall Street Journal editorial that slammed Paul’s filibuster on the Obama administration’s drone use, including a line that said “If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms.”

McCain called Paul’s concern that the government could kill any American with a drone “totally unfounded.” He referenced Jane Fonda, as Paul did on Wednesday, calling her “not his favorite American” for her support of the Viet Cong, but said the American government would not have killed her.

(WATCH: Rand Paul filibusters CIA nomination)

“To somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy and even may demonstrate against it, is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false,” McCain said.

Graham also chided his fellow Republicans on the floor for joining Paul in his filibuster.

“To my Republican colleagues, I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone, do you?” Graham said. “They had a drone program back then, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up. What are we up to here?”

Graham, who has railed against the president for the administration’s handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, praised Obama’s use of the drone program.

“People are astonished that President Obama is doing many of the things that President Bush did. I’m not astonished. I congratulate him for having the good judgment to understand we’re at war,” he said. “And to my party, I’m a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we’re at war.”

Many senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) supported Paul’s efforts on the floor Wednesday.

(PHOTOS: Filibuster highlights)

Additionally, McCain said the filibuster would give fire to critics of the Senate rules and warned his colleagues that it set a bad precedent.

“What we say yesterday is going to give ammunition to those critics who say that the rules of the Senate are being abused. I hope that my colleagues on this side of the aisle will take in that information,” he said.

Later on Thursday, Paul told reporters that the debate was “healthy,” and argued he was asking a legitimate question of the administration. He was not trying to be an obstructionist, he said, he just wanted a clarification of what the Obama administration’s policy is.

“I think there is a healthy debate in the Republican Party. It used to be monolithic that whoever is in the country that we think are bad, we call them enemy combatants and we lock them up and throw away the key,” he said. “That’s the caucus arguing against what I’m saying. But there’s a healthy debate and people are starting to understand that just by calling someone an enemy combatant doesn’t make them an enemy combatant.”

Graham told reporters in the Capitol that Paul’s filibuster has persuaded him to support the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director.

“I was going to vote against Brennan until the filibuster. So he picked up one vote!” Graham said. “It’s become a referendum on the drone program.”

Later Thursday, the outside group FreedomWorks — a major outside group — blasted McCain for his criticism of Paul.

“While Senator Rand Paul was filibustering John Brennan’s nomination for CIA Director over the Obama Administration’s implicit assertion that it can kill American citizens on American soil without charge or trial, Senator John McCain was schmoozing with President Obama over dinner,” the group wrote.

FreedomWorks asked their members to demand McCain apologize to Paul.

“These comments are rude and out of line. Senator McCain should apologize for insulting tens of millions of Americans who rightly assert that they cannot be killed by the President,” FreedomWorks said.

Tim Mak and Byron Tau contributed to this report.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A5EC8165-0642-436A-ACA2-1B42E95E2E09

McCain pretty much nailed it.

[giblets]

HC doesn't seem to be getting fired up

[regexcellent]

From what I heard all Rand Paul did was ask Holder to promise that the administration would never, without any judicial oversight, kill an American citizen on American soil with a drone outside of special circumstances like the target being in the middle of committing an act of violence.

That seems completely reasonable.

[MichaeltheGreat]

John McCain in a rare moment of lucidity:

McCain called Paul’s concern that the government could kill any American with a drone “totally unfounded.” He referenced Jane Fonda, as Paul did on Wednesday, calling her “not his favorite American” for her support of the Viet Cong, but said the American government would not have killed her.

The thought of Hanoi Jane doin' it doggie style with a drone launched hellfire missile isn't bad, though. I always wished that when she did that little pose at the AAA gun for the propaganda film bit, right at that moment a couple of Thuds on an Iron Hand mission would have dropped by.

[MichaeltheGreat]

From what I heard all Rand Paul did was ask Holder to promise that the administration would never, without any judicial oversight, kill an American citizen on American soil with a drone outside of special circumstances like the target being in the middle of committing an act of violence.

That seems completely reasonable.

The question is pretty absurd on its face. A grandstanding political circus of "do you plan to stop beating your wife?"

[Aeson]

The question is pretty absurd on its face. A grandstanding political circus of "do you plan to stop beating your wife?"

So drone strikes are like beating your wife? Got it ...

... but that aside the question isn't of the form you are presenting it as. Instead (to carry on with your analogy) it would be asking the administration to promise not to beat their wives, after the administration said it would be ok if they beat their wives. Which of course is still kinda absurd, but for totally different reasons.

[PLATO]

So drone strikes are like beating your wife? Got it ...

... but that aside the question isn't of the form you are presenting it as. Instead (to carry on with your analogy) it would be asking the administration to promise not to beat their wives, after the administration said it would be ok if they beat their wives. Which of course is still kinda absurd, but for totally different reasons.

Actually, it looks like the administration is saying its okay to beat their wives if their wives hold a knife to their throat, but that otherwise, no.

[PLATO]

It's relevant to the careful application of that authority. What constitutes war is undefined in the Constitution.

I believe it does. War is what CONGRESS declares it to be, not the Executive Branch.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Then we haven't been at war since WW2. Congress has the sole right to issue a formal "declaration of war" but that doesn't mean anything with respect to facts on the ground, or with defining what actually constitutes "war."

[MichaeltheGreat]

So drone strikes are like beating your wife? Got it ...

... but that aside the question isn't of the form you are presenting it as. Instead (to carry on with your analogy) it would be asking the administration to promise not to beat their wives, after the administration said it would be ok if they beat their wives. Which of course is still kinda absurd, but for totally different reasons.

Actually, it would be more like asking the administration "will you categorically state that you can never lay a hand on your wife" then getting freaked out because the answer comes back that "hypothetically, there might be a possible situation in which laying a hand on your wife could be legally justified" and then twisting that to "they said its ok to beat your wife" and the hysteria dying down after it was clarified, for those who couldn't figure out the obvious, "yes, 'hypothetically, there might be a possible situation in which laying a hand on your wife could be legally justified' refers to self-defense, not just wailing on your wife because you felt like it or your team lost a game"

[PLATO]

Then we haven't been at war since WW2. Congress has the sole right to issue a formal "declaration of war" but that doesn't mean anything with respect to facts on the ground, or with defining what actually constitutes "war."

I completely agree. I am simply speaking to the legal authority of the President to launch a drone strike on a U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I don't think (at least from the Bush and Obama administrations sides) there's ever been a question that such authority would only derive from the President's capacity as Commander in Chief, i.e. in the conduct of warfighting which could hypothetically arise on US soil. It's (IMO) yet another anti-Obama phantom that started with some libertarian and hyper-lefty types whining about al Awlaki's "rights."

The hilarious thing to me is they way drone striks have been singled out, as if it was somehow magically different from any other weapons system.

[PLATO]

I'm contending that in event of a war on US territory, a US citizen acting in concert with enemy combatants or an unlawful combatant organization is legally subject to the laws of war, not the process of civilian law enforcement.

Then we haven't been at war since WW2. Congress has the sole right to issue a formal "declaration of war" but that doesn't mean anything with respect to facts on the ground, or with defining what actually constitutes "war."

I don't think (at least from the Bush and Obama administrations sides) there's ever been a question that such authority would only derive from the President's capacity as Commander in Chief, i.e. in the conduct of warfighting which could hypothetically arise on US soil.

It seems to me that you are saying that the President can act under his (for lack of a better term) "war fighting" authority, even in the absence of a declared war. This is consistent with what I have seen most Presidents do. Typically, most Americans, I would think, would want the President to act to defend the country even in the absence of declared war. The real difference here is that now we are talking about U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil.

You are, rightly, pointing out that Presidents has used this implied authority extensively...then you are extrapolating the scenario that is usually a foriegn combatant on foriegn soil to be the same as a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. Seems reasonable to do. However, I believe that there is a difference in those two scenarios. As an American, am I pejudiced toward Americans and our rights to due process? Well...yes I am. I think that if the President needs this express authority then he should ask Congress to grant it...something I believe they would do. In the absence of that express authority, then I would think that due process should prevail.

The hilarious thing to me is they way drone striks have been singled out, as if it was somehow magically different from any other weapons system.

This is an excellent point. In my mind, I am having a hard time distinguishing between a drone strike and a police sniper. I guess the difference is that one is Civilian authority and one is military. I believe that any population should be concerned when a military is asked to act against its own citizens. Now...give the FBI or local police drones and I think we may clear up the issue entirely.