Skip to main content

View Diary: Droning Americans on US Soil: Why Holder's "No" is Not Reassuring (156 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you mean no weaponized drones (0+ / 0-)

    against civilians in the United States?  I think that would be a combination of no statutory authorization w/r/t civilians, and there wouldn't be an imminent danger or infeasibility of arrest and trial in that circumstance.  What's more, Brennan (the ostensible subject of the filibuster) had already testified his agency cannot use drones in the U.S., or conduct any operations in the U.S., again by statute.  Exceptions would be presumed not to apply when the predicates for the exception aren't there; and there's a difference between regarding 5th amendment protections as a balancing test and treating the balancing test as, instead, a slippery slope.  Another way I know this is all the times Rand Paul said that he didn't believe that the govt had this power during the filibuster, but he just "wanted to make sure" nobody in the tea party was going to be assassinated.  I'm glad he was able to crank out a fundraising letter before getting some much-needed sleep.  He has every right to filibuster over the use of drones, but if he's going to do so, he should attack the actual policy, not some fever-dream strawman.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 08:34:17 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That leaves the question (0+ / 0-)

      (that was tested -- and broken -- by the previous Administration) of whether the President's power as Commander-in-Chief under the so called "War Constitution" can supersede statute in exigent circumstances.

      It galls me that people here do not seem to think that, post-Bush, we have to ask these questions, get them on record, educate the public on them, and make it hard for any future President to transgress against them.  I'm on record here as saying that that attack on U.S. citizen al-Awlaki in Yemen was justified even without conviction of a crime in absentia, but I found the latter fact quite troublesome.  Also later killing his U.S. citizen son (with collateral damage in both actions) gets even worse.  So it's not a fanciful fever dream to think that whatever justifies this power of targeted assassination could be applied just as well within U.S. territory.  Maybe it's fanciful, but if the Administration really believes that it doesn't exist, then for God's sake give a straight, clear, and justified answer to the public.  The optics of this are terrible; I'm shocked that people here can't (or refuse to) see it.  We're losing people over this!

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 12:15:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How exigent are we talking? (0+ / 0-)

        Holder's first letter really did address the question - by the examples given, the Al-Alwaki killing wouldn't cut it stateside.  There's a paradox in that the biggest opponents and biggest defenders of the drone stuff on the Republican side both seem to want interpret public law and interpretive pronouncement as broadly as possible - or more - for vastly different reasons.  A broader law is easier to both demagogue and to exploit, but not really sustainably over the longer term.  

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 07:18:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site