Filibuster!

[Sam.I.Am]

Thanks much for your response, and I am sorry if I sound obstinate because I am not trying to be so.

However, this looks like another case of someone getting very twisted about a very small point.

I read the first letter (a few times now) that AG Holder sent to Senator Paul about his issue (http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf) and the issue was made very plain. The only time that weaponized drones would be used on American citizens who are on American soil would be if it there was really no other way to stop a major attack from occurring.

Therefore, there is really no difference between the first letter that Senator Paul got (which was the pretext for the fillibuster) and the second letter that Senator Paul got (which ended the fillibuster).

Accordingly, I think Senator Paul was simply doing a bit of grandstanding and/or self-promotion; both of which are perfectly acceptable behavior for any elected official.

It was a small point only if you didn't think that the letter that didn't actually say no but instead said "It depends and then we will see" was a satisfactory answer. Some people thought it did while others did not. The second reply was much clearer as it gave a specific example (engaged in active combat) and not a more nebulous example where the term "Such as" was used. If the previous memo hadn't been leaked (the one that justified the use of deadly force on US citizens abroad) the first answer would probably have been more than enough.

I'm going to use one of Holders "Such as" examples as an example as to why this is important. What if, on 9/11, the government had somehow discovered the plot soon after one of the planes had taken off but before it had been taken over and was headed towards its target? Should they have shot it down?

Hindsight says yes, of course. However what if it was actually a different flight (there actually was one flight out there that they thought at the time was also involved). Holders first answer implies that he thought that it might be justifiable to shoot it down before it was hijacked. It might not be what he meant to imply but it was there all the same. His second answer makes it quite clear that they would have to wait and be 100% sure that in fact the plane was involved (as in already taken over and well off of its flight plan) before they could act. In other words it was actually imminent and not potentially imminent that the plane was going to be used as a weapon.

 

[Crossbow]

It was a small point only if you didn't think that the letter that didn't actually say no but instead said "It depends and then we will see" was a satisfactory answer. Some people thought it did while others did not. The second reply was much clearer as it gave a specific example (engaged in active combat) and not a more nebulous example where the term "Such as" was used. If the previous memo hadn't been leaked (the one that justified the use of deadly force on US citizens abroad) the first answer would probably have been more than enough.

I'm going to use one of Holders "Such as" examples as an example as to why this is important. What if, on 9/11, the government had somehow discovered the plot soon after one of the planes had taken off but before it had been taken over and was headed towards its target? Should they have shot it down?

Hindsight says yes, of course. However what if it was actually a different flight (there actually was one flight out there that they thought at the time was also involved). Holders first answer implies that he thought that it might be justifiable to shoot it down before it was hijacked. It might not be what he meant to imply but it was there all the same. His second answer makes it quite clear that they would have to wait and be 100% sure that in fact the plane was involved (as in already taken over and well off of its flight plan) before they could act. In other words it was actually imminent and not potentially imminent that the plane was going to be used as a weapon.

And this is why I find it terribly difficult to discuss Libertian logic.

The first letter that Holder sent to Congress concerned the general principal of killing Americans who are making war with America. The second letter that Holder sent to Senator Paul concerned a specific technique for the killing of Americans who are making war against America.

And now you bring in some sort of weird hypothetical question about shooting down the wrong plane during 9/11 as well as shooting down the right plane at the wrong time during 9/11.

Therefore, if you, or Senator Paul, or anyone else is so terribly concerned about the power of the President to kill Americans who are making war against America, then I still have to suggest that the law needs to be changed. That would be a much more productive discussion as opposed to being concerned about a specific killing technique and/or fretting about very hypothetical situations.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

And this is why I find it terribly difficult to discuss Libertian logic.

The first letter that Holder sent to Congress concerned the general principal of killing Americans who are making war with America. The second letter that Holder sent to Senator Paul concerned a specific technique for the killing of Americans who are making war against America.

And now you bring in some sort of weird hypothetical question about shooting down the wrong plane during 9/11 as well as shooting down the right plane at the wrong time during 9/11.

Therefore, if you, or Senator Paul, or anyone else is so terribly concerned about the power of the President to kill Americans who are making war against America, then I still have to suggest that the law needs to be changed. That would be a much more productive discussion as opposed to being concerned about a specific killing technique and/or fretting about very hypothetical situations.

The thing is that the law doesn't really need to be changed. What was needed was a clarification on what the executive branches interpretation of the current law actually was/is. This question wouldn't need to be asked or answered but for the proven past interpretation of similar laws by the administration. That's what took this beyond the hypothetical situation that I gave above. This president actually did have an American citizen abroad killed while said citizen was not an "Active combatant" with no due process but instead by a secret decision by a few people with no oversight. Star Chambers are not supposed to exist under our form of government.

 

[Crossbow]

The thing is that the law doesn't really need to be changed. What was needed was a clarification on what the executive branches interpretation of the current law actually was/is. This question wouldn't need to be asked or answered but for the proven past interpretation of similar laws by the administration. That's what took this beyond the hypothetical situation that I gave above. [highlight]This president actually did have an American citizen abroad killed while said citizen was not an "Active combatant" with no due process but instead by a secret decision by a few people with no oversight.[/highlight] Star Chambers are not supposed to exist under our form of government.

Excuse me, but are you referring to this person?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi

If so, then I still fail to see how either the first memo that Holder sent or the second memo Holder sent relates to the above person. Because both of these memos involve the killing of Americans on American soil, whereas the above person was an American who was killed outside of the country.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Excuse me, but are you referring to this person?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi

If so, then I still fail to see how either the first memo that Holder sent or the second memo Holder sent relates to the above person. Because both of these memos involve the killing of Americans on American soil, whereas the above person was an American who was killed outside of the country.

The first letter wasn't clear on the criteria. The second letter was. If you have read the memo that was leaked on how they got around the laws regarding Americans abroad and their constitutional rights then you might understand why such a clarification was requested by Sen Paul.

 

[Crossbow]

The first letter wasn't clear on the criteria. The second letter was. If you have read the memo that was leaked on how they got around the laws regarding Americans abroad and their constitutional rights then you might understand why such a clarification was requested by Sen Paul.

Sorry, but you are still confusing me.

The memo (which I have been reading through off and on for the last couple of weeks) you speak of concerns the use lethal force against US citizens, whereas Senator Paul was asking about the use of weaponized drones against US citizens in the USA.

And as far as I can tell, the memo essentially says that it is legal under the Constitution to use lethal force against US citizens no matter where they are located provided that those citizens are an imminent threat to the USA.
And the first letter (which I have read) that was sent to Congress concerns the use of lethal force against US citizens who are in the USA.
And the second letter which was the letter addressed to Senator Paul (which I have read) specifies that it is not legal to use weaponized drones against a American citizen who happens to actually be in the USA, unless that citizen is making war on the USA.

Now then, if you and Senator Paul are really happy with that second letter, then that is fine with me. However, neither the first letter or the second letter does not negate anything in the memo.

Also, since both the first letter or the second letter relate to the use of lethal force against US citizens who are in the USA, therefore neither of these letters has bearing on the Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi case which you have been mentioning.

Futhermore, no one in Congress actually made much of a fuss about the substance of the memo which is that it is Constitutionally legal for the President to use lethal force against anyone (regardless of their citizenship or location) who is making war against the USA.

So, if you are really concerned about the Constitutional issues involved, then the law needs to be changed. However, you have already said that you do not want the law to be changed, therefore you continue to confuse me about just what it is that you are so very concerned about.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

And as far as I can tell, the memo essentially says that it is legal under the Constitution to use lethal force against US citizens no matter where they are located provided that those citizens are an imminent threat to the USA.

The memo changed the meaning of the word imminent as it is commonly used and understood to mean in order to make it legal. That is the problem and something that Sen Paul got cleared up to his satisfaction in regards to US soil. If you listened to his filibuster he specifically used the example of someone sitting at a cafe being targeted and if that person would be considered an imminent threat. For someone overseas that answer is yes according to the memo.

The first response did not address what he was asking and was a bit ambiguous in that it said that there might be a situation where it would be legal, the second one was not ambiguous in stating what they considered to be an imminent threat on US soil.

I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Crossbow]

The memo changed the meaning of the word imminent as it is commonly used and understood to mean in order to make it legal. That is the problem and something that Sen Paul got cleared up to his satisfaction in regards to US soil. If you listened to his filibuster he specifically used the example of someone sitting at a cafe being targeted and if that person would be considered an imminent threat. For someone overseas that answer is yes according to the memo.

The first response did not address what he was asking and was a bit ambiguous in that it said that there might be a situation where it would be legal, the second one was not ambiguous in stating what they considered to be an imminent threat on US soil.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Sorry, but it really does not clear it up for me.

As far as I know, the original meaning of the leaked memo is still in full effect which essentially states that it is legal to kill people who are making war on the USA. Therefore, the two letters did not change anything in that memo.

As for someone simply sitting in a cafe`, bar, church, or what-have-you does not automatically make that person a valid target. So it is rather silly to say such things.

However, if that person is a serious threat to the USA, then that person is a valid target even if they happen to be sitting in a cafe`, bar, church, or what-have-you. So it is quite correct to say such things.

As for me, I sure do not find the issue to be ambiguous because the first letter essentially stated that it would be higly unlikely, but never-the-less possible, that weaponized drones would be used on US citizens who happen to be on US soil provided that the person was involved in making war on the USA and there was no other way to stop the person in question. In this event, then it would be legal to kill that person with a weaponized drone.

Whereas the second letter stated that it would not be legal to kill a US citizen on US soil with a weaponized drone who was not making war with the USA.

In any case, it has always been legal for the President to authorize the killing of people who are engaged in combat on the USA provided that the US Congress has provided the authorization to do so. And in our present situation, the US Congress has provided the President with just that authority.

Again, as far as I can tell, neither you or Senator Paul want to remove that Congressional authorization, so I still fail to see just what it is you all are complaining about.