15 ms·

Rand Paul filibustering over drones

220 points by stfu 14y ago

VengefulCynic 14y ago
If the filibuster prompts further public discourse and a closer look at the use of lethal force without due process of law, it's positive. The real question will be if all of the other Senators vote for cloture just to get the issue swept back under the carpet. Impediments on the power of government aren't particularly popular to those who wield the power of government, regardless of the branch they occupy.
- stevesearer 14y ago
  Yeah, I've been wondering if it will amount to anything as well. My gut tells me that it won't. That said, I've had it running for around and hour and have found it interesting for no other reason than understanding how filibusters actually work. From what I can tell, he has just been spending time reading articles critical of drone strikes or reading other documents while providing commentary on them as he goes. He's even been taking time to eat a snack which provides comedic pauses in the listening experiences. Rand also gets small breaks from others who come forward to ask questions - most of which seem to be staged to help him cover additional points, reiterate his already made points, or just generally use up more clock. Based on the view behind him, it appears that all other senators need not be present while he speaks. Is that true and has this always been the case? I'd imagine that the tactic might be more compelling and useful if everyone had to sit there and listen.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    I'm unfamiliar with the specific rules of Senate decorum, but no, I don't think any other Senators except whoever's presiding are required to be present. Senators would get very little done if they had to sit in the Senate Chamber any time any one of them had something he or she wanted to say. They're all pretty garrulous.
    - unclenoriega 14y ago
      This is true. The Senate assumes a quorum is present unless someone suggests the absence of a quorum, so as long as there's a designated president, they're good to go. There are several YouTube videos of pro forma sessions where just the presiding senator and staff are present.
  - hkmurakami 14y ago
    Lawrence Lessig provides a great description of how our representatives "rush in" in time to vote and then rush out immediately to make more phone calls to solicit contributions. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...
  - lmkg 14y ago
    The important thing to understanding filibusters is that they're a dirty, dirty hack. They were never really intended to be part of the legislative process, they're just some enterprising senators noticing and exploiting some loopholes in the senate's debate rules. While the House puts some limits on debates, to move things along, the Senate is a more deliberative body (by design) and therefore doesn't vote on an issue until it has been completely debated. There is no strict definition of "completely debated" beyond "someone still has something to say." As any half-awake hacker no doubt will notice, this means that you can prevent a law from getting voted on, and therefore passing, by simply not ending the debate. This is what a filibuster is. There are technically some restrictions around debate, and the band-aid fix that a supermajority vote can stop debate and bring a vote, but that's about the only thing stopping it in practice. The main technical restriction is that, if the Senate doesn't have anything else to do, any one Senator only gets one monologue. They can't stop one day, and then filibuster again the next day. This rule can be stretched, but not broken. Hence, the content of most filibusters tend to be long space-fillers, which is what you're seeing. There's also a rule that the debate must be 'on topic,' but that's too vaguely defined to be worth anything. Famously, one Senator said something to the effect of "this law is not in the interests of my constituents, who are as follows:" and then proceed to literally read the phone book for a few hours.
    - logn 14y ago
      Filibuster the way it's used today is a dirty hack. But Sen. Paul is actually using it legitimately by standing and debating/speaking instead of just declaring 'I filibuster' and going home (implying that he would speak forever but doesn't need to since it's merely a formality). It's actually the most refreshing political action I've seen in a while. They're talking through the night, live now: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ He vows to speak as long as he's physically able.
    - stevesearer 14y ago
      It's funny that you mention the space-fillers because Senator Ted Cruz is currently reading tweets that are supportive of Rand's filibuster.
    - 14y ago
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  the use of lethal force without due process of law This canard has been debunked so many times on HN that I've lost count, but carry on as if the constitutional, legislative, ethical and historical justification for drone strikes had not been repeatedly explained in copious detail. It's much easier to pretend there's a conspiracy of silence and that nobody has ever stepped up to present an argument for the administration's position.
  - camperman 14y ago
    Constitutional justification for drone strikes? Interesting claim. Any links?
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168711 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168711 and about 500 other threads. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+constitutional+justification+for+drone+strikes http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+constitutio...
      - camperman 14y ago
        All I see here is the President granting himself and his administration powers to assassinate US citizens. This is NOT Constitutional in any shape or form. Never has been, no matter how many lists of exceptions there are. I can't find anything in the Constitution that allows him to do so, hence my question.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    The administration's position is, frankly, bullshit. It amounts to little more than the executive branch reserving for itself the ability to call any location outside of US territory a battlefield and to designate anyone they wish a threat worthy of summary execution. Now, all of this is couched in the most justifiable of terminology and is crafted to follow the broad outlines of judicial procedure but the fact remains that the administration has given themselves this authority and retain whatever oversight, if any, is involved with it. This is utterly antithetical to the principles set forth in our constitution and if any of the founding fathers were alive today I'm quite certain they would vomit at the idea.
harrylove 14y ago
Live right now on C-SPAN2: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/
- vxNsr 14y ago
  It's most interesting to hear what he's talking about and how he can just keep talking and talking and talking. He'll repeat himself and then say it again in a third way, it's great.
  - retrogradeorbit 14y ago
    I like the other senators helping him out by 'asking him to answer questions whithout relinquishing the floor'. Zerohedge coverage here with some quotes: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/rand-pauls-filiblizzard-enters-its-sixth-hour http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/rand-pauls-filibliz...
krschultz 14y ago
The letter Eric Holder sent that caused this. http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanPaul.pdf http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanPaul.pdf
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  That's a letter from John Brennan, nominee for head of the CIA. This is the letter from Eric Holder: http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse... In my view it's entirely reasonable, and Rand Paul is full of shit. His filibuster is nothing other than pandering to a right-wing fringe that considers Obama to be the reincarnation of Josef Stalin.
  - Uhhrrr 14y ago
    Don't you think there should be legal limitations on the President's ability to order someone's death? Note that Holder's letter recognizes no such limitations.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      There should and there are. These have been presented in detail before and no doubt will be again. If Holder were to submit a lengthy memo restating the administration's legal position in regards to military action within the borders of the US, people would complain that he was trying to bury the issue in obfuscatory language. Let me offer you instead a rule of thumb by which to judge this situation. You are aware, no doubt, that there are many combat-ready planes and ships operated by our armed forces in the airspace and waters of the continental US; and you can surely conceive of situations where those planes and ships might be ordered to intercept or even fire upon targets in response to military or terroristic threats. The primary purpose of having armed forces, after all, is for a country to defend itself from attack. If tomorrow we were to find that hostile actors had control of a jet airliner and were flying it towards a city or similarly important target, nobody would be surprised or upset if the President were to order fighter jets scrambled in order to divert even destroy it if necessary. Indeed, the previous administration came in for quite a bit of criticism over its lack of preparedness to take such actions on September 11 2001. If you are OK with this, and I would bet money that you are, because no government in its right mind would respond to military attack by filing suit in the Supreme Court or asking congress to legislate before doing anything, then you should be OK with drones being employed for the same purpose. On the off-chance that you are opposed to any military assets of any kind being deployed within or around the US during peacetime, and that the US should not maintain any sort of defensive capability, then we are doomed to disagree.
olympus 14y ago
Filibustering is great and all, but how about introducing some legislation clarifying the issue that US citizens are off limits to drones? It would be too easy for Holder or Obama to say, "okay, we won't do it" and then go back on their word. Having the law on the books makes it a lot tougher for Obama and any future presidents to kill citizens without affording them their full right to trial.
- homosaur 14y ago
  I'm sure that will happen sooner rather than later, but Brennan's dog and pony show is a perfect place to make a nice point about the issue since he's one of the prime advocates for the drone movement.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Don't we have something more powerful than a law on the books now? The 5th Amendment is pretty clear on the subject: you must follow due process. I honestly don't see how a strike on US soil against a US citizen could be seen as constitutional. But then, there have been a lot of things over the past 15 years that I've felt the same way about.
  - olympus 14y ago
    The 5th Amendment is great, but that doesn't mean that Congress can't pass something clarifying how drone strikes fit into that framework and settling the issue before someone gets blown up by a Hellfire missile. I don't see how anything like drone strikes on US soil could be constitutional either, regardless of what the memos and briefings from the Attorney General's office say. But I'd sure like this to be put to bed before someone dies from it, and I think that Congress should be the place to do it. It would be almost impossible to vote against such legislation and would probably help Congress' approval rating because they will be doing something worthwhile.
  - jff 14y ago
    The standard process seems to be to violate the Constitution, then continue doing it until the Supreme Court tells you you've been very naughty.
tokipin 14y ago
if it wasn't drones it would've been something else. everything in the senate is filibustered by default, quite literally. there isn't anything special about this case except the drone issue itself
- ericcumbee 14y ago
  No this is different there are two different types of Filibuster. a Filibuster lite which is more or less a procedural trick. and then the full blown Mr. Smith Goes to washington keep talking until you drop filibuster. this is the full blown filibuster and it's actually quite rare.
tptacek 14y ago
Rand Paul asked a stupid question†† of Eric Holder, one of the top lawyers in the USG, and received a predictably stupid answer. That question, distilled: "is there any conceivable situation in which drones could be used to attack US citizens on US soil'. How could the answer to that question be anything but yes? All you have to do is imagine a far-fetched scenario in which an al Qaeda terrorist who happens to be a US citizen is going to kill hundreds of Americans, imminently, but for an intervention that will only be effective via drone strike. A simpler way to frame this that hundreds of people have now pointed out, which has the helpful property of extracting the scary alien new "drones"† from the equation: the authority Holder is claiming for the administration is the same as the one that would allow them to down a jetliner hurtling towards the Sears Tower: an intervention only available to the military. There were good questions available to Rand Paul before he decided to prematurely declare victory over common sense. Two I can come up with: * Does the administration claim the right to use military resources to attack US citizens on US soil if compelling evidence exists that they are al Qaeda terrorist when no specific evidence exists that such a person plans to imminently attack the US? Can the US use an airstrike against an al Qaeda terrorist who is a US citizen simply to keep them from "getting away"? * Does the administration claim the right to use airstrikes against al Qaeda terrorists of any nationality when a reasonable person could infer a likelihood that such a strike would cause harm to Americans in the vicinity of the strike? There are more good questions, I'm sure. "Could there ever be a case when..." is literally the "ticking time bomb" question; the dumbest of all questions. † Scared kids in combat boots with M16s have done far more damage to innocent lives, both at home and abroad, than drones will ever do; drones are often a way of affecting concern for the lives of people 'like us' while ignoring the safety of civilians and servicemembers on the ground. †† "What stupid question?" This one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335285 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335285
- Lost_BiomedE 14y ago
  Personally, even in your far-fetched scenario, I would prefer a 'no'. It would have to be much further far-fetched for the only answer to that threat to be a drone. Should we arm some in air drones for such a scenario? All sorts of slippery slope. The answer should just be a no.
defilade 14y ago
It's a complete and utter fallacy to say that the government doesn't have the authority to kill people without due process. The police and Federal law enforcement do it all the time. It's called justifiable homicide.
- erichocean 14y ago
  It's called justifiable homicide. And it requires an actual incident, with some kind of "eminent harm". That's a lot different than what Rand Paul is talking about, which is targeting someone who is just going about their day that the government would prefer to dispatch without going to trial. (If you object to the "just going about their day" part, that's exactly how we do drone strikes outside the US.)
ameister14 14y ago
I don't really understand the argument against what Rand Paul is talking about. Even if you think he's being ridiculous, what's the problem with declaring due process applies to drone strikes on American soil? Personally, I think this is exactly what I want from my political representatives.
BlindRubyCoder 14y ago
Good for him. Maybe more of the general public will actually start talking about it. Right now I think most of the populace is blissfully unaware of the program.
DanielBMarkham 14y ago
So let me see if I understand this. One guy is filibustering the CIA nominee based on an incomplete and vague set of questions and answers -- which one side says is nothing new and the other side says changes the game. The filibuster has no chance of succeeding, and all the little political wonks are coming out of the woodwork and taking sides based on the party of the senator involved. More dysfunctional Washington? A man standing up for his morals? A pointless charade? Just bluster and theater in preparation for the next presidential race? I don't care. Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of governments watching over their own citizens. For the next few hours, I could care less which party Rand Paul is from. I stand with him. We can all tear him down tomorrow. There's plenty of time for that later.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of governments watching over their own citizens. What I don't understand, is why when John McClane was shot at by an F-22 Raptor in Live Free or Die Hard, why there wasn't a big outcry at that time. There were no complaints, no HN threads that I remember, and certainly no filibusters in Congress. None of the reviews talked about some "dystopian future America", they said that shit blew up and it was otherwise an action movie. Why is it OK for the American military to use an F-22 Raptor on one of their own citizens but drones are no good? Mind, I understand completely why people are concerned about why the military could or could not be employed domestically; I just don't understand why people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters, rocket launchers, bazookas, motorized anti-aircraft weaponry, bum-standard rifles and carbines, etc.
  - PhearTheCeal 14y ago
    It's just another weapon that the government has now. When the government gets more powerful, the citizens get less powerful than their government. Most citizens fear being totally helpless against their government's power. So small incremental increases in government power, like drones, usually spell bad news for the citizens.
    - 14y ago
SCAQTony 14y ago
Did anybody write the President after they heard about Holder's outrageous comments? If not please do.
Tangaroa 14y ago
Did everyone here skip US History in high school and college? One of the main reasons for creating the Constitution was that the Articles of Confederation made it too difficult for the government to use military force against US citizens on US soil, e.g. Shays's Rebellion. The Constitution allows Congress to raise and use an army -- such as through an Authorization for the Use of Military Force -- and to destroy "Insurrections", i.e. US citizens on US soil. And when the President swears to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic", what did you think "and domestic" means? And no, you don't have a Fifth Amendment to not be shot at when you join the enemy during a war; and no, being a citizen does not give you rights, and the Constitution does not grant you rights. The Constitution grants the government powers and limits those powers. All people inherently have rights by virtue of being born. Read Blackstone's Commentaries; the Founding Fathers did. That was the standard law textbook in the colonies at the time of the Revolution. Remember that this whole drone nontroversy arises from the killing of al-Qaeda's leader Anwar Awlaki and a few of his followers who all happen to have been US citizens and who had invaded Yemen and carved out their own country there. The drone question is not about hypothetical harm done to innocent Americans, it's about whether the army may use military force on al-Qaeda when there is a Congressional law explicitly directing that the army do so. Why is this even a question?
- logn 14y ago
  Yeah, did ya get the memo? http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16870230-4-key-questions-about-controversial-justice-department-drone-memo?lite http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16870230-4-key-qu... This isn't about true war and combatant enemies. This is about worst-case-scenario 1984 happening soon by having a perpetual war with a nebulous enemy. Whether you think this is a legitimate worry or not is irrelevant. The President is claiming broad, never before used power. Maybe he can be trusted with this, but no president ever has, and there will be future ones. (He's challenging principles from the Magna Carta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta which was the basis for various rights of due process in the Constitution) Also, we drone struck Anwar Awlaki's 16-year-old son from Colorado while he was overseas looking for his father (whom was dead due to another drone strike). When asked about it, the administration (Robert Gibbs) commented, "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father". So we go after your family if you've ever been against the US and haven't since publicly renounced that stance. That's cool with you? If it is, keep in mind this is all hypothetical anyhow since nobody's getting a trial.
mkhattab 14y ago
One of the problems I see with this is that a Republican is leading the charge on this rather than a Democrat. And because Rand Paul says a lot of stupid things, as do most Republicans, I think many people will dismiss this as partisan politics (which it probably is). I think we need another president as bad or worse as Bush again (perhaps Romney or Palin) to put enough pressure on citizens to become actively engaged again and take to the streets.
- noarchy 14y ago
  >I think we need another president as bad or worse as Bush again (perhaps Romney or Palin) to put enough pressure on citizens to become actively engaged again and take to the streets. You're all but saying that you don't think that people will take to the streets when a Democratic president is in power. I'd submit that Obama has been worse than Bush in a number of areas. In particular, he extended every major Bush-era power-grab, ranging from the Patriot act, to warrantless wiretapping. And then he piled more on top of that. It might be more accurate to condemn both major US parties as loving power and war. If people won't condemn both, and prefer instead to remain tribalistic in their allegiance to one of the parties, then there's really not much hope for any change (not that I was ever optimistic about that).
mandytolliver 14y ago
Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Jason Chaffetz. Is some sanity creeping into our political system?

220 points by stfu 14y ago

If the filibuster prompts further public discourse and a closer look at the use of lethal force without due process of law, it's positive. The real question will be if all of the other Senators vote for cloture just to get the issue swept back under the carpet. Impediments on the power of government aren't particularly popular to those who wield the power of government, regardless of the branch they occupy.

stevesearer 14y ago
Yeah, I've been wondering if it will amount to anything as well. My gut tells me that it won't. That said, I've had it running for around and hour and have found it interesting for no other reason than understanding how filibusters actually work. From what I can tell, he has just been spending time reading articles critical of drone strikes or reading other documents while providing commentary on them as he goes. He's even been taking time to eat a snack which provides comedic pauses in the listening experiences. Rand also gets small breaks from others who come forward to ask questions - most of which seem to be staged to help him cover additional points, reiterate his already made points, or just generally use up more clock. Based on the view behind him, it appears that all other senators need not be present while he speaks. Is that true and has this always been the case? I'd imagine that the tactic might be more compelling and useful if everyone had to sit there and listen.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I'm unfamiliar with the specific rules of Senate decorum, but no, I don't think any other Senators except whoever's presiding are required to be present. Senators would get very little done if they had to sit in the Senate Chamber any time any one of them had something he or she wanted to say. They're all pretty garrulous.
  - unclenoriega 14y ago
    This is true. The Senate assumes a quorum is present unless someone suggests the absence of a quorum, so as long as there's a designated president, they're good to go. There are several YouTube videos of pro forma sessions where just the presiding senator and staff are present.
- hkmurakami 14y ago
  Lawrence Lessig provides a great description of how our representatives "rush in" in time to vote and then rush out immediately to make more phone calls to solicit contributions. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...
- lmkg 14y ago
  The important thing to understanding filibusters is that they're a dirty, dirty hack. They were never really intended to be part of the legislative process, they're just some enterprising senators noticing and exploiting some loopholes in the senate's debate rules. While the House puts some limits on debates, to move things along, the Senate is a more deliberative body (by design) and therefore doesn't vote on an issue until it has been completely debated. There is no strict definition of "completely debated" beyond "someone still has something to say." As any half-awake hacker no doubt will notice, this means that you can prevent a law from getting voted on, and therefore passing, by simply not ending the debate. This is what a filibuster is. There are technically some restrictions around debate, and the band-aid fix that a supermajority vote can stop debate and bring a vote, but that's about the only thing stopping it in practice. The main technical restriction is that, if the Senate doesn't have anything else to do, any one Senator only gets one monologue. They can't stop one day, and then filibuster again the next day. This rule can be stretched, but not broken. Hence, the content of most filibusters tend to be long space-fillers, which is what you're seeing. There's also a rule that the debate must be 'on topic,' but that's too vaguely defined to be worth anything. Famously, one Senator said something to the effect of "this law is not in the interests of my constituents, who are as follows:" and then proceed to literally read the phone book for a few hours.
  - logn 14y ago
    Filibuster the way it's used today is a dirty hack. But Sen. Paul is actually using it legitimately by standing and debating/speaking instead of just declaring 'I filibuster' and going home (implying that he would speak forever but doesn't need to since it's merely a formality). It's actually the most refreshing political action I've seen in a while. They're talking through the night, live now: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ He vows to speak as long as he's physically able.
  - stevesearer 14y ago
    It's funny that you mention the space-fillers because Senator Ted Cruz is currently reading tweets that are supportive of Rand's filibuster.
  - 14y ago
anigbrowl 14y ago
the use of lethal force without due process of law This canard has been debunked so many times on HN that I've lost count, but carry on as if the constitutional, legislative, ethical and historical justification for drone strikes had not been repeatedly explained in copious detail. It's much easier to pretend there's a conspiracy of silence and that nobody has ever stepped up to present an argument for the administration's position.
- camperman 14y ago
  Constitutional justification for drone strikes? Interesting claim. Any links?
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168711 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5168711 and about 500 other threads. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+constitutional+justification+for+drone+strikes http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+constitutio...
    - camperman 14y ago
      All I see here is the President granting himself and his administration powers to assassinate US citizens. This is NOT Constitutional in any shape or form. Never has been, no matter how many lists of exceptions there are. I can't find anything in the Constitution that allows him to do so, hence my question.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  The administration's position is, frankly, bullshit. It amounts to little more than the executive branch reserving for itself the ability to call any location outside of US territory a battlefield and to designate anyone they wish a threat worthy of summary execution. Now, all of this is couched in the most justifiable of terminology and is crafted to follow the broad outlines of judicial procedure but the fact remains that the administration has given themselves this authority and retain whatever oversight, if any, is involved with it. This is utterly antithetical to the principles set forth in our constitution and if any of the founding fathers were alive today I'm quite certain they would vomit at the idea.

harrylove 14y ago

Live right now on C-SPAN2: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

vxNsr 14y ago
It's most interesting to hear what he's talking about and how he can just keep talking and talking and talking. He'll repeat himself and then say it again in a third way, it's great.
- retrogradeorbit 14y ago
  I like the other senators helping him out by 'asking him to answer questions whithout relinquishing the floor'. Zerohedge coverage here with some quotes: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/rand-pauls-filiblizzard-enters-its-sixth-hour http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/rand-pauls-filibliz...

krschultz 14y ago

The letter Eric Holder sent that caused this. http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanPaul.pdf http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanPaul.pdf

anigbrowl 14y ago
That's a letter from John Brennan, nominee for head of the CIA. This is the letter from Eric Holder: http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse... In my view it's entirely reasonable, and Rand Paul is full of shit. His filibuster is nothing other than pandering to a right-wing fringe that considers Obama to be the reincarnation of Josef Stalin.
- Uhhrrr 14y ago
  Don't you think there should be legal limitations on the President's ability to order someone's death? Note that Holder's letter recognizes no such limitations.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    There should and there are. These have been presented in detail before and no doubt will be again. If Holder were to submit a lengthy memo restating the administration's legal position in regards to military action within the borders of the US, people would complain that he was trying to bury the issue in obfuscatory language. Let me offer you instead a rule of thumb by which to judge this situation. You are aware, no doubt, that there are many combat-ready planes and ships operated by our armed forces in the airspace and waters of the continental US; and you can surely conceive of situations where those planes and ships might be ordered to intercept or even fire upon targets in response to military or terroristic threats. The primary purpose of having armed forces, after all, is for a country to defend itself from attack. If tomorrow we were to find that hostile actors had control of a jet airliner and were flying it towards a city or similarly important target, nobody would be surprised or upset if the President were to order fighter jets scrambled in order to divert even destroy it if necessary. Indeed, the previous administration came in for quite a bit of criticism over its lack of preparedness to take such actions on September 11 2001. If you are OK with this, and I would bet money that you are, because no government in its right mind would respond to military attack by filing suit in the Supreme Court or asking congress to legislate before doing anything, then you should be OK with drones being employed for the same purpose. On the off-chance that you are opposed to any military assets of any kind being deployed within or around the US during peacetime, and that the US should not maintain any sort of defensive capability, then we are doomed to disagree.

olympus 14y ago

Filibustering is great and all, but how about introducing some legislation clarifying the issue that US citizens are off limits to drones? It would be too easy for Holder or Obama to say, "okay, we won't do it" and then go back on their word. Having the law on the books makes it a lot tougher for Obama and any future presidents to kill citizens without affording them their full right to trial.

homosaur 14y ago
I'm sure that will happen sooner rather than later, but Brennan's dog and pony show is a perfect place to make a nice point about the issue since he's one of the prime advocates for the drone movement.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Don't we have something more powerful than a law on the books now? The 5th Amendment is pretty clear on the subject: you must follow due process. I honestly don't see how a strike on US soil against a US citizen could be seen as constitutional. But then, there have been a lot of things over the past 15 years that I've felt the same way about.
- olympus 14y ago
  The 5th Amendment is great, but that doesn't mean that Congress can't pass something clarifying how drone strikes fit into that framework and settling the issue before someone gets blown up by a Hellfire missile. I don't see how anything like drone strikes on US soil could be constitutional either, regardless of what the memos and briefings from the Attorney General's office say. But I'd sure like this to be put to bed before someone dies from it, and I think that Congress should be the place to do it. It would be almost impossible to vote against such legislation and would probably help Congress' approval rating because they will be doing something worthwhile.
- jff 14y ago
  The standard process seems to be to violate the Constitution, then continue doing it until the Supreme Court tells you you've been very naughty.

tokipin 14y ago

if it wasn't drones it would've been something else. everything in the senate is filibustered by default, quite literally. there isn't anything special about this case except the drone issue itself

ericcumbee 14y ago
No this is different there are two different types of Filibuster. a Filibuster lite which is more or less a procedural trick. and then the full blown Mr. Smith Goes to washington keep talking until you drop filibuster. this is the full blown filibuster and it's actually quite rare.

tptacek 14y ago

Rand Paul asked a stupid question†† of Eric Holder, one of the top lawyers in the USG, and received a predictably stupid answer. That question, distilled: "is there any conceivable situation in which drones could be used to attack US citizens on US soil'. How could the answer to that question be anything but yes? All you have to do is imagine a far-fetched scenario in which an al Qaeda terrorist who happens to be a US citizen is going to kill hundreds of Americans, imminently, but for an intervention that will only be effective via drone strike. A simpler way to frame this that hundreds of people have now pointed out, which has the helpful property of extracting the scary alien new "drones"† from the equation: the authority Holder is claiming for the administration is the same as the one that would allow them to down a jetliner hurtling towards the Sears Tower: an intervention only available to the military. There were good questions available to Rand Paul before he decided to prematurely declare victory over common sense. Two I can come up with: * Does the administration claim the right to use military resources to attack US citizens on US soil if compelling evidence exists that they are al Qaeda terrorist when no specific evidence exists that such a person plans to imminently attack the US? Can the US use an airstrike against an al Qaeda terrorist who is a US citizen simply to keep them from "getting away"? * Does the administration claim the right to use airstrikes against al Qaeda terrorists of any nationality when a reasonable person could infer a likelihood that such a strike would cause harm to Americans in the vicinity of the strike? There are more good questions, I'm sure. "Could there ever be a case when..." is literally the "ticking time bomb" question; the dumbest of all questions. † Scared kids in combat boots with M16s have done far more damage to innocent lives, both at home and abroad, than drones will ever do; drones are often a way of affecting concern for the lives of people 'like us' while ignoring the safety of civilians and servicemembers on the ground. †† "What stupid question?" This one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335285 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335285

Lost_BiomedE 14y ago
Personally, even in your far-fetched scenario, I would prefer a 'no'. It would have to be much further far-fetched for the only answer to that threat to be a drone. Should we arm some in air drones for such a scenario? All sorts of slippery slope. The answer should just be a no.

defilade 14y ago

It's a complete and utter fallacy to say that the government doesn't have the authority to kill people without due process. The police and Federal law enforcement do it all the time. It's called justifiable homicide.

erichocean 14y ago
It's called justifiable homicide. And it requires an actual incident, with some kind of "eminent harm". That's a lot different than what Rand Paul is talking about, which is targeting someone who is just going about their day that the government would prefer to dispatch without going to trial. (If you object to the "just going about their day" part, that's exactly how we do drone strikes outside the US.)

ameister14 14y ago

I don't really understand the argument against what Rand Paul is talking about. Even if you think he's being ridiculous, what's the problem with declaring due process applies to drone strikes on American soil? Personally, I think this is exactly what I want from my political representatives.

BlindRubyCoder 14y ago

Good for him. Maybe more of the general public will actually start talking about it. Right now I think most of the populace is blissfully unaware of the program.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago

So let me see if I understand this. One guy is filibustering the CIA nominee based on an incomplete and vague set of questions and answers -- which one side says is nothing new and the other side says changes the game. The filibuster has no chance of succeeding, and all the little political wonks are coming out of the woodwork and taking sides based on the party of the senator involved. More dysfunctional Washington? A man standing up for his morals? A pointless charade? Just bluster and theater in preparation for the next presidential race? I don't care. Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of governments watching over their own citizens. For the next few hours, I could care less which party Rand Paul is from. I stand with him. We can all tear him down tomorrow. There's plenty of time for that later.

mpyne 14y ago
> Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of governments watching over their own citizens. What I don't understand, is why when John McClane was shot at by an F-22 Raptor in Live Free or Die Hard, why there wasn't a big outcry at that time. There were no complaints, no HN threads that I remember, and certainly no filibusters in Congress. None of the reviews talked about some "dystopian future America", they said that shit blew up and it was otherwise an action movie. Why is it OK for the American military to use an F-22 Raptor on one of their own citizens but drones are no good? Mind, I understand completely why people are concerned about why the military could or could not be employed domestically; I just don't understand why people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters, rocket launchers, bazookas, motorized anti-aircraft weaponry, bum-standard rifles and carbines, etc.
- PhearTheCeal 14y ago
  It's just another weapon that the government has now. When the government gets more powerful, the citizens get less powerful than their government. Most citizens fear being totally helpless against their government's power. So small incremental increases in government power, like drones, usually spell bad news for the citizens.
  - 14y ago

SCAQTony 14y ago

Did anybody write the President after they heard about Holder's outrageous comments? If not please do.

Tangaroa 14y ago

Did everyone here skip US History in high school and college? One of the main reasons for creating the Constitution was that the Articles of Confederation made it too difficult for the government to use military force against US citizens on US soil, e.g. Shays's Rebellion. The Constitution allows Congress to raise and use an army -- such as through an Authorization for the Use of Military Force -- and to destroy "Insurrections", i.e. US citizens on US soil. And when the President swears to defend the Constitution against "all enemies, foreign and domestic", what did you think "and domestic" means? And no, you don't have a Fifth Amendment to not be shot at when you join the enemy during a war; and no, being a citizen does not give you rights, and the Constitution does not grant you rights. The Constitution grants the government powers and limits those powers. All people inherently have rights by virtue of being born. Read Blackstone's Commentaries; the Founding Fathers did. That was the standard law textbook in the colonies at the time of the Revolution. Remember that this whole drone nontroversy arises from the killing of al-Qaeda's leader Anwar Awlaki and a few of his followers who all happen to have been US citizens and who had invaded Yemen and carved out their own country there. The drone question is not about hypothetical harm done to innocent Americans, it's about whether the army may use military force on al-Qaeda when there is a Congressional law explicitly directing that the army do so. Why is this even a question?

logn 14y ago
Yeah, did ya get the memo? http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16870230-4-key-questions-about-controversial-justice-department-drone-memo?lite http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16870230-4-key-qu... This isn't about true war and combatant enemies. This is about worst-case-scenario 1984 happening soon by having a perpetual war with a nebulous enemy. Whether you think this is a legitimate worry or not is irrelevant. The President is claiming broad, never before used power. Maybe he can be trusted with this, but no president ever has, and there will be future ones. (He's challenging principles from the Magna Carta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta which was the basis for various rights of due process in the Constitution) Also, we drone struck Anwar Awlaki's 16-year-old son from Colorado while he was overseas looking for his father (whom was dead due to another drone strike). When asked about it, the administration (Robert Gibbs) commented, "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father". So we go after your family if you've ever been against the US and haven't since publicly renounced that stance. That's cool with you? If it is, keep in mind this is all hypothetical anyhow since nobody's getting a trial.

mkhattab 14y ago

One of the problems I see with this is that a Republican is leading the charge on this rather than a Democrat. And because Rand Paul says a lot of stupid things, as do most Republicans, I think many people will dismiss this as partisan politics (which it probably is). I think we need another president as bad or worse as Bush again (perhaps Romney or Palin) to put enough pressure on citizens to become actively engaged again and take to the streets.

noarchy 14y ago
>I think we need another president as bad or worse as Bush again (perhaps Romney or Palin) to put enough pressure on citizens to become actively engaged again and take to the streets. You're all but saying that you don't think that people will take to the streets when a Democratic president is in power. I'd submit that Obama has been worse than Bush in a number of areas. In particular, he extended every major Bush-era power-grab, ranging from the Patriot act, to warrantless wiretapping. And then he piled more on top of that. It might be more accurate to condemn both major US parties as loving power and war. If people won't condemn both, and prefer instead to remain tribalistic in their allegiance to one of the parties, then there's really not much hope for any change (not that I was ever optimistic about that).

mandytolliver 14y ago

Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Jason Chaffetz. Is some sanity creeping into our political system?