Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

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).

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com