Rand Paul does something I (mostly) approve of

[MrFun]

But the fact that Iraqis are human beings doesn't count for anything, though.

[Kidlicious]

Too bad the Geneva Conventions don't prohibit or seriously regulate the use of drones.

Or maybe it's just another way of saying, "Brown-skinned people in far away lands don't count as human."

Drone strikes are a heck of a lot better than fire bombing.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

But the fact that Iraqis are human beings doesn't count for anything, though.

Who made that claim?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Maybe next time we use a drone, we should first send someone, and if he manages to find the target still in the area, say "Hi, I'm an American official concerned for your human rights, so I'd like to let you know we're about to launch a hellfire missile on your ass and I just wanted to make sure that's ok with you and that you're not really a bunch of civilians gathering here for something harmless like stoning a teenage girl sold into marriage and then accused of adultery because hubby dear wants a different fourth wife."

[snoopy369]

Where were these people when Bush was doing the same thing? Just curious.

(For the record, I've been against this and the other post-9/11 expansions of executive power since the beginning.)

[DinoDoc]

Holder said, in effect, he couldn't absolutely, 100% rule out use of drone strikes in some circumstances, subject to POTUS approval and consistent with the Constitution. Which eliminates extrajudicial executions and limits the use to POTUS' authority as Commander in Chief, so all you've got there is a million to one hypothetical about a war fought on US soil.

Actually we don't know what the legal authority the POTUS claims his power to order the deaths American citizens as he refuses to even allow members of Congress to have access to the memos laying out that case. So what's the justification for your faith in Dear Leader again?

And no, it's not black helicopters and gummint gon' take yer gunz, either. If that's the sort of fantasy world nonsense you want to get your panties in a bunch over, be my guest.

You'd have been a good German in the 1930's. Anytime someone questions government actions using the Constitution as the basis for the criticism they are obviously a member of a right wing militia group hiding out in the woods. I suppose you were working for the Sinaloa Cartel while you were living in Mexico too if were going to make absurd assumptions about each other.

In the cold war, we didn't rule out use of NBC weapons on American soil. So big, ****ing deal.

Is AQ threatening to march its tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue?

[Berzerker]

congress has the power to make rules about how we conduct a war, if congress objects to drones or how they're being used its up to them to change the policy

[Kidlicious]

congress has the power to make rules about how we conduct a war, if congress objects to drones or how they're being used its up to them to change the policy

I'd prefer they didn't if it's to get people to vote for them who call the President Dear Leader and compare him to Hitler.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually we don't know what the legal authority the POTUS claims his power to order the deaths American citizens as he refuses to even allow members of Congress to have access to the memos laying out that case. So what's the justification for your faith in Dear Leader again?

No faith at all. Just judging by actual acts. Any armed drones over your house yet? Didn't think so. I'm not concerned about Red Dawn hypotheticals.

You'd have been a good German in the 1930's. Anytime someone questions government actions using the Constitution as the basis for the criticism they are obviously a member of a right wing militia group hiding out in the woods.

So where were all these people wailing and gnashing their teeth about Reagan refusing to absolutely rule out preemptive nuclear first strike? A refusal to make a statement (non-binding in any event) ruling out a hypothetical is hardly "government action."

I suppose you were working for the Sinaloa Cartel while you were living in Mexico too if were going to make absurd assumptions about each other.

Arellano-Felix organization, actually.

Is AQ threatening to march its tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue?

Possibly in the same alternate universe to which Holder's hypothetical drone strike exists.

[Felch]

I guess the Army doesn't train its boys to give a **** about the Constitution. The way MtG go on, you'd think the Fourteenth Amendment was for wiping asses.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's not for wiping off spooge after sucking al Qaeda dick because OMG OMG al Awlaki and Adam Gadahn were Amurkin citizens and their "rights" were violated. The Due Process Clause does not apply to combatants in armed conflicts against the United States. Due process = kill that goat****er by whatever means are most suitable.

[PLATO]

Mtg, the issue is simple. Does the President have the Constitutional Authority to order the death of an American citizen on American soil?

If so, under what circumstances?

If Congress has questions about this, then they should act through their power of legislation.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Abraham Lincoln, by his views that the CSA secession was not legitimate, authorized the deaths of thousands of "American citizens" on American soil.

If an American citizen is acting in the role of a regular or unlawful combatant member of an organization waging war against the US on American soil, then drone strikes (or any other means of killing the enemy) are within POTUS' authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. That's the limit of it, though, as AG Holder already clarified in a letter to Rand Paul. Paul said he had no problem with that.

[MrFun]

So where were all these people wailing and gnashing their teeth about Reagan refusing to absolutely rule out preemptive nuclear first strike? A refusal to make a statement (non-binding in any event) ruling out a hypothetical is hardly "government action."

DD only has criticism regarding violations of constitutional issues if they are political leaders of the Democratic party.

He's a tool for the Republican party.

[DinoDoc]

DD only has criticism regarding violations of constitutional issues if they are political leaders of the Democratic party.

He's a tool for the Republican party.

Why did Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) participate in Rand Paul's filibuster?