Hacker News Reader

Comment by jgon | Hacker News Reader

Have you been watching the filibuster? Because in the 20 minutes I have been watching it Rand Paul has explicitly claimed that his concern is not with using drones on a US citizen in the event of imminent harm no less than 5 times. He has given several examples of the exact nature of the military downing a hijacked aircraft. He has several times said all he wants is explicit clarification that drones will not be used against non-combatants, which people piloting a hijacked aircraft would clearly not be.

Given this, how do you reconcile his repeated public statements with your contention that this is his only concern?

View on HN

Paul's own words prior to the filibuster, from his written question to John Brennan, to which Holder responded:

The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored.

(Em. from original).

Right, this is explicitly why I referenced what he is currently saying. He has said multiple times in the now 40 minutes I have spent watching that all he wants is explicit clarification that drones will not be used on American soil against noncombatant US citizens. He has publicly said if he receives this he will end the filibuster.

I am discussing what he is saying right now, during the filibuster, in an article discussing the filibuster. Claiming his previous statements accurately reflect what he is currently filibustering over is incorrect.

What if they are used against combatant US citizens but there is collateral damage? Is that acceptable? If not, why do we accept it overseas?

What part of 'the Administration ... has no intention of doing so' does he (and do you) not understand? Is he asking Holder to make definitive statements about the future?

That's not answering the question. The question is, does the president have the constitutional right to use lethal force against someone who does not pose an imminent threat without due process either from the judicial or legislative branch, following some established law enforcement precedent .. intentions are irrelevant. And if anyone thinks this whole issue is asinine because the question is so silly, well that's because the answer is so obvious. "No." But that answer hasn't been stated. Paul says once it is, he will stop.

That's not the question Rand Paul put to Brennan, for one thing; for another, there is a large class of persons for whom the answer is 'yes.' You want the answer to be 'No,' but that doesn't mean it is.

No. "No intention" does not imply "No constitutional right to". The issue is about due process. Leaving it up to the whims of leaders is not following the rule of law.

What do you think "due process" mean?

I'm not asking rhetorically. I am literally interested in what you've learned about the meaning of the term "due process".

Paul's beef with the "we have no intention to " position is that by extension, if there was an intention to, lethal force against a non-imminent threat on an american citizen could be unilaterally carried out by the decree of a president. He disagrees with this position, that the president has this constitutional right. He wants the administration to state clearly that they do not have this right. He mentions the Posse Comitatus Act over and over which prohibits the military from using force on American soil unless war or an insurrection is declared. If the military cannot operate within the boundaries of the the US (except for imminent threats), then these issues are police matters. There is a legal process for this. Paul describes the clear distinctions that separate military and police power from judicial power. Clearly and unequivocally, the precedent needs to be stated and defined. I think, and from what I gather, Paul has stated that this is obvious and not very complicated and can easily be stated. But for some reason the message keeps getting muddled by the administration, and we get the repeated "no intention to" answer over and over...when the dispute comes down to "have no constitutional right to". That is the disagreement.

Not Paul, but an interesting video nonetheless. Why can't Holder just say, "No, it doesn't." And then move on to his expansive reply. He dithers and vacillates and it just seems unnecessary to me.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/06/cruz-goes-after-ho...

Holder is not going to say 'no, it doesn't,' because it does. For one thing, the Coast Guard is explicitly excluded from the Posse Comitatus Act; for another, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 affirms the AUMF and identifies a class of persons against whom the Executive may act freely (members of Al Qaeda and suchlike); for a third, Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the military (including the Coast Guard) to enforce the laws instead of the police, but (as you observe) this does not apply to situations of war or insurrection.

Ryan's letter to Brennan asked about whether the administration believes it 'has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?' It says nothing about a 'non-imminent threat,' and Paul himself seems to appreciate that emergent threats like a hijacked airliner being used as a weapon would not fall within the scope of his inquiry.

Right, so I didn't explicitly state that the dispute is over force against US citizens. Unilateral lethal force against US citizens who do not pose an immediate threat without due process. 5th ammendment stuff. So yes, the answer is NO.

That does not make any difference. A US citizen could be affiliated with Al Qaeda, for example.

Also, you keep adding 'US citizens who do not pose an immediate threat' even though that was not part of Rand Paul's question in the letters to John Brennan, and it is nothing more than a straw man. If the person does not present an imminent threat the the use of military force would not be necessary, by definition.

For persons who do present a colorable threat to the US in concert with Al Qaeda or its affiliates, regardless of their citizenship or situation within or without the boundaries of the US, the President's determination is the due process. If you don't like this (which I quite understand) then what you want is to amend the AUMF. Because it very clearly grants such broad authority to the President.

In this context, I don't see why the answer would need to be any more detailed or nuanced than the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page.

Criminal prosecution is governed by law, and arbitrarily executing citizens (specifically, per Senator Paul's language over the course of the filibuster, those who are not actively engaged in combat) is a pretty direct abrogation of rights granted by said law.

What's the real question here?

You can be involved in military operations without being involved in actual combat. Even during WWII that described about 95% of the life of an infantryman (to say nothing of those who never went to the front lines).

And either way once you've put yourself in a military status in conflict with another power you've lost the right to have to agree about where the next battle starts; either party gets to decide until a later peace agreement/cease-fire/etc. is reached.

His repeated statements are designed to mislead you, and they seem to be working. Holder told him the administration has no intention of doing the thing he says he's concerned about, so why is he still concerned about it?

A: I am concerned that you are going to do [something bad]. Are you?

B: What? No, I have never done that, I am certainly not going to do that.

A: WHY WON'T YOU GIVE ME A STRAIGHT ANSWER?

A: I'm concerned you have the power to do x. Do you have such a power?

B: Well, I haven't used it yet, and probably won't.

I responded to the question in the grandparent post. If Rand Paul is now asking Holder whether the has powers to deploy drones on American soil, then I'd say the answer is Yes, and Holder gave ample clarification of that.

"What? No, I have never done that, I am certainly not going to do that."

Holder said nothing of the kind.

As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.

...

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront.

"We reject the use...where...provide the best means".

That leaves the option to use drones if they decide they're the "best means" 100% open.

"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront."

"Hopes" are as meaningless as "intentions" in this context.

He went beyond saying that they had no plans to use drones in the US to take a swipe at the hawk position that the military was the only appropriate vector with which to address terrorism; "terrorism is not a law enforcement problem" was practically the motto of the Cheney shadow Defense Department.

I'm choosing my words carefully there, by the way. I don't remember the actual wording, but that was literally one of Cheney's doctrines.

I think this is what you might be referring to: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10...

The former vice president, who is promoting his memoir, defended Obama against critics who challenge the legality of Friday's attack because al-Awlaki was an American citizen.

"I think the president ought to have that kind of authority to order that kind of strike, even when it involves an American citizen," Cheney said.

"It is different between a law enforcement action and a war," Cheney said. "And we are at war. We believe we are in war. We believe the war started when they killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11."

So, he 1) didn't answer the question 2) instead used it as an opportunity to campaign and 3) this some how makes it better from your point of view?

Oh yes he did.

No.

He didn't.

Yes he did. The President can't relinquish his duties as Commander-in-Chief in the event of an attack upon the United States. That role is constitutionally defined as a part of the Presidency, which the President is sworn to execute.

You will note the ancestor post above '[Rand Paul] has several times said all he wants is explicit clarification that drones will not be used against non-combatants, which people piloting a hijacked aircraft would clearly not be.'

And yes, Holder did say that the administration is not going to do that. If you think otherwise then I invite you to cite the specific statement you disagree with.

"And yes, Holder did say that the administration is not going to do that. If you think otherwise then I invite you to cite the specific statement you disagree with."

Why don't you cite the specific statement where he said that?

This: "We will not use drones for extrajudicial executions of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil." would qualify as such a statement.

"Intentions" and "hopes" do not.

I already did, as has tptacek: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335651 You're just playing word games at this point. 'Will' and 'intention' are synonymous in English.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com