Posted on 03/07/2013 12:31:07 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Sen. Rand Paul declared "victory" Thursday after Attorney General Eric Holder assured him that the president cannot use a drone to kill a non-combatant American on U.S. soil -- an assurance Paul had sought during his 13-hour filibuster the day before.
"Hooray!" Paul responded, when read the letter for the first time during an interview with Fox News. "For 13 hours yesterday, we asked him that question, so there is a result and a victory. Under duress and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing."
During his dramatic filibuster, which delayed a vote on CIA director nominee John Brennan, Paul had demanded the administration clarify the government's authority to kill on U.S. soil. The filibuster ended early Thursday morning.
But on Thursday afternoon, Holder sent a terse letter to Paul that said: "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
In response, Paul said Thursday that "we're proud to announce that the president is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil." He later took to the floor to promote the attorney general's response, before the Senate moved to vote on Brennan.
Though Paul's 13-hour stand drew praise from all sides of the political spectrum, the senator did take heat Thursday from some in his own party who claimed he stirred unnecessary fear about the use of drones.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Strictly speaking, Eric Holder already acknowledged this yesterday after three agonizing minutes of Ted Cruz teasing it out of him. But Rand Paul wanted a formal statement from the White House as a condition of ending his filibuster. And now, apparently, he’s got it:
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at 1:15 pm. that Mr. Holders letter to the Kentucky Republican went out shortly after noon, and just 12 hours after Mr. Paul stages a marathon talking filibuster on the Senate floor demanding clarification of U.S. drone policies and the presidents authority to order strikes on Americans.
Mr. Holders letter answers Mr. Rands question, Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill Americans not engaged in combat on U.S. soil, Mr. Carney said.
The answer to that question is no, he said. A letter signed by the attorney general has gone out in the last half an hour.
That’s nearly the full text of the letter, a copy of which you can find at the Weekly Standard. All that’s missing is how it begins: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question.” Yeah? Paul’s been demanding an answer from the White House about this since mid-February at least. Only yesterday, after he spent 13 hours on the Senate floor repeating that question a few thousand times, did it finally come to Holder’s attention?
Also, before you celebrate, think carefully about whether Holder’s really answering his concerns. Paul wasn’t just asking about “weaponized drones.” He was asking about targeted killing generally. Sending the CIA in to shoot a guy in the head because he’s on O’s “kill list” doesn’t address the due process concerns just because no drone was used. The phrase “not engaged in combat” is also murky since the entire point of this debate is about defining what it means to be “engaged in combat” against the United States. Paul’s point yesterday was that, even if a U.S. citizen is an “enemy combatant,” the feds should be barred from summarily executing him if he’s on U.S. soil. Only if he’s in the process of carrying out an attack is lethal force justified. That’s his definition of “engaged in combat,” at least inside the continental U.S. The alternate definition is that an “enemy combatant” is, by his very nature, always engaged in combat against America. The DOJ itself more or less adopted that definition by defining “imminence” so broadly in its “white paper” on drone attacks as to suggest that members of Al Qaeda are always, at every moment, posing an imminent threat because they’re “continually plotting.” By that standard, Obama could drop a bomb on a U.S.-born jihadi hiding in an American safe house and still be okay under Holder’s letter here because the target was, as a member of Al Qaeda who was up to no good, necessarily “engaged in combat.” We’ll see what Paul has to say to all this. Not sure if he’s seen the letter yet, but for now he’s enjoying seeing them forced to speak up:
Rand Paul doing an end zone dance on Fox: “Under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will relent and do the right thing.”
— Mike O’Brien (@mpoindc) March 7, 2013
Update: Perhaps it’s time for Congress to stop letting Obama define his own authority on this:
We suspect the day an administration starts killing Americans with drones at cafes to borrow one of Rand Pauls hypotheticals is the day impeachment proceedings begin. If Congress is worried, though, there is a simple expedient. As Andy McCarthy has written, Nothing prevents Congress from amending the AUMF to provide explicit protections for Americans suspected of colluding with this unique enemy. Congress could, for example, instruct that in the absence of an attack or a truly imminent threat, the president is not authorized to use lethal force in the United States against Americans suspected of being enemy combatants. Congress could also define what it means by imminent.
And in fact, Paul and Ted Cruz have a bill in the works that would do just that. Which poses a dilemma for O: Resist on grounds that the bill is a violation of separation of powers because it circumscribes his authority as commander-in-chief, or give in because it would be simply atrocious for a president to oppose a bill limiting his power to assassinate Americans?
Update: Paul says he’s A-OK with Holder’s response:
Im quite happy with the answer, Paul told CNN. Through the advise and consent process, Ive got an important answer.
Next thing we’ll hear, Rand will have been taken out by a Hellfire missile while having a latte at Starbucks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time ... IT’S A TRAP!!!! Aien’t worth the paper or Disk Space it’s written on! ALL MOSLEMS(and thier TOADIES) LIE!
Define non combatent.
FROM WASHINGTON TIMES:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/7/holder-no-authority-drone-strikes-non-combatant-am/
Holder: No authority for drone strikes on non-combatant Americans
Attorney general sends letter to Sen. Paul after filibuster
EXCERPT:
White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at 1:15 pm. that Mr. Holders letter to the Kentucky Republican went out shortly after noon, and just 12 hours after Mr. Paul stages a marathon talking filibuster on the Senate floor demanding clarification of U.S. drone policies and the presidents authority to order strikes on Americans.
Mr. Holders letter answers Mr. Rands question, Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill Americans not engaged in combat on U.S. soil, Mr. Carney said.
The answer to that question is no, he said. A letter signed by the attorney general has gone out in the last half an hour.
Eric Holder responds to Rand Paul's filibuster with this letter:
Dear Senator Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
Sincerely,
Eric Holder
Here's an image of that letter:
UPDATE: Apparently, the White House and Justice Department failed to send the letter to the person who asked the question--Rand Paul.
Spox for Sen. Rand Paul on Holder: "We haven't received any letter yet."
— Sabrina Siddiqui (@SabrinaSiddiqui) March 7, 2013
More Rand Paul spox on Holder letter: "Apparently he sent it to everyone except the man who asked the question."
— Sabrina Siddiqui (@SabrinaSiddiqui) March 7, 2013
Press Release of Senator Cruz
Cruz, Paul Introduce Bill to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens Contact: (202) 228-0462 / press@cruz.senate.gov
WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) today introduced legislation to prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. “Our Constitution restrains government power,” Cruz said. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The Commander in Chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.” Key bill text: ###
|
Holder’s attitude towards the truth is about the same as that of Islam; you need not tell it to the Infidel (Patriot) if you can advance the faith (the regime) with a lie.
I have a question for Senator Paul. If the president is notified that an airliner with 200 passengers on board has been hijacked by Muslim extremists who plan to fly it into a packed football stadium then does he have the authority to order that airplane shot down?
The question in effect becomes — which do you prefer, 200 people dead or 3000 people dead?
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I don’t think the constitution gives you a guide to this.
Something beyond that document has to prevail.
I doubt they’d use a drone to bring down a passenger jet. A fighter jet would be more appropriate.
And I’d argue yes, the President does have the authority. If I were President and that situation presented itself, I’d give the order to shoot it down without batting an eye.
The cutesieness of the letter is pathetic. Holder apparently thinks he’s making a point.
RE: The cutesieness of the letter is pathetic. Holder apparently thinks hes making a point.
It took Holder 13 hours to give a one word answer.
Ted Cruz kept asking Holder the same question yesterday and Holder could not give a straight answer.
You didn't watch any of the filibuster, did you? I watched only three hours of the thirteen, and he addressed that specific scenario *multiple* times.
So it’s not a question of whether the President can order an American citizen killed without due process, it’s just a question of how its done?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.