Rand Paul Filibuster of Brennan Nomination

• Con_Alma

  There are differing legal opinions on the constitutionality of the use of drones on American Citizens. I agree that the terms should be clarified but such actions do not mean that they are ilegal proceedings by the Executive Branch.
  
  The US is still fighting “a war of self-defense against an enemy that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Our domestic statute, the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), informed by the principles of the laws of war, is the basis for our detention authority and the use of force, including our lethal targeting of individuals. Not only has Congress shown no interest in reining in the executive and invoking the War Powers Resolution, it has expanded the scope of the AUMF in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 by broadening the definition of the enemy beyond those responsible for 9/11 – now the vaguely defined “associates” of Al Qaeda who had nothing to do with 9/11 can also be targeted for indefinite detention and death.
  
  
  Targeting individuals for death by drone even if they are far from a battlefield is legal under international law because we carefully consider “the imminence of the threat” as well as the “sovereignty of the other states involved,” and because we limit our attacks to military objectives in our war of self-defense and prohibit attacks that are expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life. “US targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war procedures….our practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust&#8230recision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination’” – which would be unlawful under our domestic law.
  
  
  There is a different set of laws relating to drone strikes on civilians outside of internationally recognized war zones - they come under human rights law. The standards that make up human rights law stipulate that outside of armed conflict, lethal force is a law enforcement matter that may only be used in self-defense or when strictly necessary to prevent imminent harm to life and when an arrest cannot be undertaken.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma, pardon me, but what a load of crap. The answer to Rand Paul's question should be a resounding "NO"; there is no ifs ands or buts about it! :mad:
• queencitybuckeye

  justincredible;1401859 wrote:The Constitutionality of drones killing American civilians on American soil is not a moot issue.

  I agree, but the latter is of more importance to me than the former.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1401885 wrote:Con_Alma, pardon me, but what a load of crap. The answer to Rand Paul's question should be a resounding "NO"; there is no ifs ands or buts about it! :mad:

  What it should be and what it is are two different things.
  
  The legality of the issue is the point of contention. There are differing legal opinions right now. They need to be clarified and adhered to.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1401890 wrote:What it should be and what it is are two different things.
  
  The legality of the issue is the point of contention. There are differing legal opinions right now. They need to be clarified and adhered to.

  So you agree with Rand's filibuster efforts in seeking clarification from the Obama administration?
• Glory Days

  

  hasbeen;1401784 wrote:So it's a fear of technology he's fighting against? Gotcha. Thanks.

  
  Why are they debating the use of manned fighter jets killing us citizens? Are you seriously telling me there is a difference?
• Gblock

  big waste of time...if politicians spent half the time solving problems as they do grandstanding our country would be way better off. they keep arguing and getting paid and our country goes to hell.
• Glory Days

  

  hasbeen;1401784 wrote:So it's a fear of technology he's fighting against? Gotcha. Thanks.

  
  Why arent they debating the use of manned fighter jets killing us citizens? Are you seriously telling me there is a difference?
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1401892 wrote:So you agree with Rand's filibuster efforts in seeking clarification from the Obama administration?

  I do....kind of. Let's look at what I think it will and won't do.
  
  It will not stop the confirmation process taking place.
  
  It did give Mr. Paul some additional positive publicity with the U.S. Citizens.
  
  It won't necessarily provide the clarification from the White House he and others are seeking.
  
  All in all it was probably a very wise thing for Mr. Paul to do and I agree with him doing so if what he truly wanted out of it will realistically occur.
• Glory Days

  

  hasbeen;1401807 wrote:Apparently, he wants the ability to kill for no reason. And he's a cop. That's scary shit.

  When did i or obama say they want to kill for no reason? Since do drones strike anywhere for no reason?
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;1401895 wrote:big waste of time...if politicians spent half the time solving problems as they do grandstanding our country would be way better off. they keep arguing and getting paid and our country goes to hell.

  This...although there may be some ancillary benefits to the filibuster for Mr. Paul.
• Glory Days

  

  justincredible;1401859 wrote:LOL. Is this guy for real? The Constitutionality of drones killing American civilians on American soil is not a moot issue. Jesus christ. I'm terrified that you're a cop. Seriously.

  Its no different than any other government entity killing a citizen on our soil. Why are we making this an issue even though manned and armed fighter jets are scrambled regularly to deal with us piloted planes.
  
  I love how people fear the term "drone".
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1401897 wrote:I do....kind of. Let's look at what I think it will and won't do.
  
  It will not stop the confirmation process taking place.
  
  It did give Mr. Paul some additional positive publicity with the U.S. Citizens.
  
  It won't necessarily provide the clarification from the White House he and others are seeking.
  
  All in all it was probably a very wise thing for Mr. Paul to do and I agree with him doing so if what he truly wanted out of it will realistically occur.

  Would you vote for him in 2016?
• hasbeen

  

  Glory Days;1401893 wrote:Why are they debating the use of manned fighter jets killing us citizens? Are you seriously telling me there is a difference?

  Glory Days;1401896 wrote:Why arent they debating the use of manned fighter jets killing us citizens? Are you seriously telling me there is a difference?

  
  

  Glory Days;1401898 wrote:When did i or obama say they want to kill for no reason? Since do drones strike anywhere for no reason?

  Let me rephrase. Use a drone to kill americans without giving them due process.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1401905 wrote:Would you vote for him in 2016?

  If the election were today I would, yes. Why do you ask?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1401909 wrote:If the election were today I would, yes. Why do you ask?

  I ask because I'm very interested in your opinion on the matter.
• justincredible

  

  Glory Days;1401903 wrote:Its no different than any other government entity killing a citizen on our soil. Why are we making this an issue even though manned and armed fighter jets are scrambled regularly to deal with us piloted planes.
  
  I love how people fear the term "drone".

  If someone is combative and in the process of attacking Americans, yes, lethal force is justified. If the person is non-combative and not an immediate threat, no, lethal force is not justified.
• hasbeen

  

  Glory Days;1401903 wrote:Its no different than any other government entity killing a citizen on our soil.

  Usually, when a citizen is killed on US soil, it is when they are putting people in danger(i.e. a police officer killing a guy pointing a gun at him).
  
  Not sure what immediate threat a person on the ground is to a drone in the air.
• Con_Alma

  hasbeen;1401907 wrote:Let me rephrase. Use a drone to kill americans without giving them due process.

  When an American, when anyone is unable to be detained and is posing an imminent threat that would injur or kill other citizens, are you suggesting it not be targeted and stopped with the tools we have available...even if by death?
  
  There are legal opinions that such an action would not be uncosntitutional. That is the issue at hand.
• justincredible

  

  Gblock;1401895 wrote:big waste of time...if politicians spent half the time solving problems as they do grandstanding our country would be way better off. they keep arguing and getting paid and our country goes to hell.

  Yeah, god forbid a politician stand up for the Constitution. Stop trying to make Rand the "problem" here.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1401910 wrote:I ask because I'm very interested in your opinion on the matter.

  Well, I'm not sure why you might be but you now have it.
  
  I would vote for Rand Paul much more so than his father. Rand appears to be much more supportive of military strength and yet is not shy about balanced budget needs while seemingly maintaing an internal social conservatism.
• Gblock

  justincredible;1401914 wrote:Yeah, god forbid a politician stand up for the Constitution. Stop trying to make Rand the "problem" here.

  meh he made his point after 7 hours..what whas the point of the other six? waste of time imo. just like most of what happens in govt nowadays. especially when its not going to effect the nomination as i understand it. seems like he is trying to get attention for himself.
• hasbeen

  

  justincredible;1401911 wrote:If someone is combative and in the process of attacking Americans, yes, lethal force is justified. If the person is non-combative and not an immediate threat, no, lethal force is not justified.

  This guy talks better than me.
• hasbeen

  

  Gblock;1401916 wrote:meh he made his point after 7 hours..what whas the point of the other six? waste of time imo. just like most of what happens in govt nowadays. especially when its not going to effect the nomination as i understand it. seems like he is trying to get attention for himself.

  he got attention for the issue.
• Con_Alma

  Gblock;1401916 wrote:meh he made his point after 7 hours..what whas the point of the other six? waste of time imo. just like most of what happens in govt nowadays. especially when its not going to effect the nomination as i understand it. seems like he is trying to get attention for himself.

  Personal attention is the only thing that will come of it. I'm not opposed to that but thinking anything else will be benefited by the action is silly.