FILIBUSTER! Topic: Drone Strikes on American Soil. Is it Constitutional?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Elizabeth619

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2011
6,397
109
48
Rand Paul ends epic filibuster over Brennan



WASHINGTON — After nearly 13 hours on the Senate floor, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., ended hi
s filibuster blocking Senate confirmation of John Brennan, President Obama's pick for director of the CIA.

"I'm going to speak as long as I can to draw attention to something I find very disturbing," Paul said when he started speaking around 11:45 a.m. Wednesday morning. He finally ceded the floor at about 12:40 a.m. local time on Thursday.
What started in the morning as a solo effort turned into a multi-senator debate that included one Democrat, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and at least seven Republicans questioning the constitutionality of drone strikes on U.S. citizens at home and abroad.
"No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty of a crime by a court," Paul said. "How can you kill someone without going to a judge, or a jury?"
Paul, a critic of Obama's unmanned drone policy, started his self-described filibuster by demanding the president or Attorney General Eric Holder issue a statement assuring that unmanned aircraft would not be used in the United States to kill terrorism suspects who are U.S. citizens.
Paul said that his opposition was not about Brennan himself, but the constitutional issues involved. "We really just want [Obama] to say he won't" attack noncombatants on U.S. soil.
The federal government has not conducted such operations and doesn't plan to, Attorney General Eric Holder told Paul in a March 4 letter. But, Holder added, it was possible President Obama could be forced by an "extraordinary circumstance" to kill citizens inside the United States, and he cited the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks as examples.
During his filibuster, Paul said the fuzziness of such language created a slippery slope that could lead to the targeting of citizens who merely have different opinions about policies than the president.
"You can't be judge, jury and executioner all in one," Paul said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took the floor around 4:30 p.m. to say any vote to end debate on Brennan's nomination or to approve him as CIA director would happen Thursday.
Democrats who lead the Senate could move Brennan's nomination to a vote, Paul said during the filibuster, if they would introduce a resolution saying they would not advocate the killing of noncombatants with drone strikes.
Wyden, a longtime critic of excessive government intelligence and surveillance programs, said "the senator from Kentucky has made a number of important points."
There are times, Wyden said, when a U.S. citizen who takes up arms against the United States while overseas can be attacked by a drone. But the executive branch of government, he said, should not be allowed to "conduct such a far-reaching policy without scrutiny."
It's not a partisan issue, Paul said, noting that he voted to support the nominations of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, the secretaries of State and Defense.
Paul and other senators had delayed a full Senate vote on Brennan's nomination until they received more information about the drone program. The White House provided Justice Department documents on the drone program to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday.
The committee then voted 12-3 to approve Brennan's nomination.
Brennan, the White House's top counterterrorism adviser, was closely linked to the drone program. The administration has used the unmanned aircraft to regularly target suspected terrorists in the Middle East and Africa.
In 2011, U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike in Yemen, raising questions about the use of the armed drones on American citizens.
Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina had used Brennan's nomination to air concerns about the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.
McCain and Graham said they would oppose Brennan unless they got classified documents detailing the administration's actions immediately following the attack, the Associated Press reported.
The White House has said it provided more documents to lawmakers about that attack.
Before coming to the White House, Brennan served 25 years in the CIA.
 
I think it's his unofficial official 2016 announcement speech.
 
Doing this is unconstitutional. There are many terrorists in the world. Many who want Americans dead. It is now obvious the worst terrorist of all is our own president.
 
I think it's a bit overdramatic. Anyone who really thinks there will be a drone strike against an American in this country is a bit off their rocker, me thinks. :)
 
I think it's a bit overdramatic. Anyone who really thinks there will be a drone strike against an American in this country is a bit off their rocker, me thinks. :)
The fact the president thinks he has to right do it is a bit screwed up as well
 
And what is the point in an armed drone in American airspace if there is no chance or intent of them striking?
 
Good point, but I'd like to see the quote where he states he has the right.
He refused to state whether or not he had authority to use drone strikes which is the problem. Why can he not answer a simple question?

Armed drones in this country are here for a reason. If he has no plan to strike on American soil then WHY are they here?
 
Me thinks anyone who doesn't think there could be drone attacks on US soil should pull their head out of the ...sand. :)
 
Doing this is unconstitutional. There are many terrorists in the world. Many who want Americans dead. It is now obvious the worst terrorist of all is our own president.
I really don't see the big deal.
Police can decide someone is a threat and take them out without "due process".
Our president is elected. He has the oversight of Congress. Which is a lot more than your average police officer has.
 
He refused to state whether or not he had authority to use drone strikes which is the problem. Why can he not answer a simple question?

Armed drones in this country are here for a reason. If he has no plan to strike on American soil then WHY are they here?
He can already order that an airplane be shot down in American airspace if he believes there are terrorists on board. That kills people without due process.

I imagine most would favor said actions if it saved lives. And if the president didn't do said actions, and said lives got lost, I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't be all like.."Well he was just protecting their civil liberties...give him a break."

No I'm pretty sure our twitter, facebook feeds, blogs, message boards would be filled up with rants about how the president cared more about a terrorist's civil liberties than he did over american lives.
 
Obama's administration isn't going to come out and say for 100% certainty a military drone won't be used over America, because there are a million scenarios, and one of those scenarios may require it to save lives. And if that action weren't taken to save lives, then NO ONE would say, "Well he's just protecting civil liberties of terrorists. It's fine that he let all those Americans die."
 
Steve-Irwin-steve-irwin-4018300-1111-1000.jpg

'Ere we see a rare but beautiful 1Still_waters, with an unheard-of quadruple post!!! Good going, mate.
 
He can already order that an airplane be shot down in American airspace if he believes there are terrorists on board. That kills people without due process.

I imagine most would favor said actions if it saved lives. And if the president didn't do said actions, and said lives got lost, I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't be all like.."Well he was just protecting their civil liberties...give him a break."

No I'm pretty sure our twitter, facebook feeds, blogs, message boards would be filled up with rants about how the president cared more about a terrorist's civil liberties than he did over american lives.

You should log in my Facebook and see that they're already saying it. I live in a red state. In the Bible Belt. Interesting opinions I see of our nations leader.
 
Doing this is unconstitutional. There are many terrorists in the world. Many who want Americans dead. It is now obvious the worst terrorist of all is our own president.

Oh no, not him.... It's the ones that pulling his strings that are the worst terrorists. He's just going along for the popularity ride.
 
Actually, I don't perceive an actual drone strike until the government sets up another "terrorist strike" on US soil, just like they did last time. Perhaps they'll blame Iran this time.:rolleyes:
 
If it's on Facebook, it must be true. :) I know you're just being informative Elizabeth. Forgive me for my poor attempts at humor.

I fall down the middle politically. So I don't care too much for what each side has to say when it isn't productive, which is most of the time. My older brother is a Tea Party type and my younger sister is what most would describe as a bleeding-heart liberal. I think they are both more than a bit nutty.

I cast my first presidential vote in 1980 for Reagan. I didn't think he was the better man (gasps from the Republicans), but I felt he was better for the country at the time. And that's the same reason I voted for Clinton. (more gasps) :)

God Bless! :)