|
tazzygirl -> RE: The Paul Filibuster (3/6/2013 7:55:24 PM)
|
Much of what happens in war (or terroristic issues) is problematic for me... but I recognize what its a personal issue. I also have stated that if a drone can save a military life, then I am all for it, in regards to actions outside of this country. I dont think I could stomach it then either. As US citizens, we have certain rights, including the right a trial. This would basically be a lynching... at the whim of .. who?
Part of the issue is this....
He began to winnow the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.
But he also said the government has no intention of carrying out drone strikes inside the United States. Echoing what he said in a letter to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, he called the possibility of domestic drone strikes "entirely hypothetical."
That letter, released Tuesday, was prompted by questions raised over the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA. Specifically, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee sought the Obama administration's legal rationale for its use of drones to kill terror suspects overseas.
But Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who has said he would do what he could to hold up Brennan's nomination until he got a full answer to his query, wanted to know whether the administration considered that policy applicable domestically.
The United States, he said, has not carried out such action domestically and had no plans to do so.
Holder said a potential scenario might involve a president ordering such action "to protect the homeland" in a case like the 2001 al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington or the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.
But he said the administration rejects the use of military force where law enforcement authorities provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.
Paul, who released the letter from Holder along with his statement, was not satisfied with the response.
"The U.S. attorney general's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening. It is an affront to the constitutional due process rights of all Americans," Paul said.
Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst, said on CNN's "The Situation Room" that Holder made it clear in his letter that he would have to examine the facts of each situation separately and advise the president on his legal authority.
"Again, he made a point of saying Sen. Rand Paul's question is hypothetical at this time. But at some point down the road, this may not be hypothetical," Toobin said.
Brennan defended the use of drones overseas at his confirmation hearing weeks ago, but acknowledged there should be more public discussion.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/politics/obama-drones-cia/index.html
Paul didnt like the answers he got. Many citizens didnt like those answers either. Frankly, I cannot blame them.
This, to me, used against a US citizen, isnt legal, isnt constitutional, and smacks of domestic terrorism perpetuated by the government. I agree with Toobin in this case.
One of the things I love best about the US (and only one of those many things) is our "seeming" appearance of checks and balances. I have to say seeming because, as we all know, that system doesnt always work, but its there for a reason. Allowing these types of strikes within the US, or against US citizens, takes away those "checks and balances".. and I am not one to forgive an "oops, I was wrong" in this situation.
|
|
|
|
