Rand Paul

Yeah, I can't understand the democrat's lock step in supporting it either.  The one thing I do love about the democratic party is their support of civil liberties.  Yet, the assassination of US citizens by the President of the US is likely one of the most blatant civil liberties issues in the history of the US and they support it. wtf

He did get 1 democrat supporting him, along with 3 other republicans.

I applaud Rand Paul's filibuster yesterday and watched a good amount of it live on CSPAN2.  I was really happy to see Sen. Cruz from Texas stand alongside Paul in the filibuster.  He was a dark horse in last year's senate race and I am proud to have supported him.  

We need more elected officials (from whatever party) to take a stand against the eroding of personal and economic liberty.  Since third parties are not a viable alternative in our system, I would really like to see a shift in the Republican Party to a more libertarian philosophy - Paul and Cruz are a good start.   

politics aside, I like him because of the whole Aqua Buddha thing.  He's got a sense of humor.

Definitely a fan of Senator Paul here. 

I almost like the way Obama keeps laying the piles and the Repub party keeps willfully stepping in them. Might convince enough people to get someone like Paul through a presidential primary for once. 

The use of lethal force in the face of an imminent threat has always been upheld.  Although the drone strike justification white paper requires an "imminent threat", the definition allows for strikes against those without even a showing of a coherent threat, more less an imminent one.

I have serious concerns about drone strikes against US citizens abroad.  The filibuster yesterday was concerning AG Holder's implication that drone strikes could be used against US citizens on US soil.  

OK, now lets think of this scenario.  The US gets "intelligence" that there's a terrorist group meeting and planning to attack somebody tomorrow.  In that case according to the AG of the US it would be legal for the president to send in the drones and level the building, including the women and children that live there.  This is how we do it overseas.

Then you get into how reliable is the intelligence??
I decide to go to a local Tea Party meeting and some loony liberal doesn't like it and calls the police saying we're meeting to plan an attack on the state capital.  Do they then have the legal right to kill us all because they received intelligence that we were going to attack somebody.

I believe the problem with the administration's stance is that they only need to think you are planning something like Tony said.

If I call the cops and say my neighbor is planning to burn down my house with me and my family in it the cops don't go to my neighbors house and shoot him dead. 

Same as I cannot go to my neighbors house the day before he is planning to burn it down and shoot him dead. There would even be a question as to whether or not I was justified in shooting him if I caught him pouring gas on my house and lighting a match as the fire would take a while to spread so the threat might not be imminent enough for me to shoot him. Now, if he douses me in gas and then goes for a lighter I am at that point justified in shooting him because if I don't I will be in immediate and grave danger. IE I die or he dies. 

I understand your argument, but the way things are worded the administration has way too much discretion in whether or not to kill someone. It is a precedent that shouldn't be set or available for use. Might not be a big deal this year, or even next year but somewhere down the road someone will use it improperly and it will be too late for whoever catches the missile in the face. 

Under your first scenario, why would you assume the administration would use a drone strike?  We could use local police force, CIA, FBI, SWAT, Special Forces to apprehend the alleged criminals. 

??Ok, let's now think of this scenario. The US gets "intelligence" that there's a terrorist group meeting and planning to attack somebody tomorrow.  In that case according to the AG of the US it would be legal for the president to send in the drones and level the building, including women and children that live there.  The president decides to not send in the drones and the next day the terrorists level two high rise buildings killing several thousand people.  The President and his adminstration are then raked over the coals for sitting on their hands and not protecting the citizens of this country. 

And that is exactly why we have a constitution which should not be forsaken for a perceived gain in safety. All well and good until the government decides you are a terrorist. 

One of the justifications for drone strikes is that capture of the "operational leader" is not feasible.  While there is an argument that capturing an operational leader in Yemen may not be "feasible," there is no such argument in your scenario.

Here is the text of the drone strike memo:

[W]here the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful: (1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

They shouldn't even have the option to use a drone strike.  As you mentioned they should send in law enforcement.  That's really my point, why does the administration not just say, no we don't have the authority and will never do that?  Because they want to have the option to do that in the future, when they deem it appropriate.  I have enough problems with what law enforcement does to violate peoples rights, I dam sure don't want to give the President the legal authority to assassinate people.

For the second part, I feel very strongly that the US should never ever level a building with women and children in it under any circumstance.  That's what third world dictatorships do.  Think Syria.  There were organized factions of people standing up to and attacking the government.  They didn't send in the police, they just bombed and assassinated people.

What ever happened to the adage that it's better to let 99 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person?  Now it's we'd rather have the option to kill 99 people because we know there's at least 1 in there who is planning something bad.

Exactly, which is why I stated the administration would not be using a drone in the prior scenario.  With innocent people at risk, the most feasible way would be with the use of special forces, SWAT, CIA, and/or FBI to surround/storm the building.  I agree, overseas that may not be an option, thus the use of drones. 

I'd say the difference with me is I don't trust the President to make these decisions and I don't want them to even have the option.  I wouldn't trust any President with these decisions, so it's not just an Obama thing.

And there's the rub.  The administration refuses to state that they cannot and will not use a drone in your scenario.  In fact, according AG Holder, the scenario does not require the imminence suggested in your scenario.  

More from the memo: 

"the condition that an operational leader, an operational leader of a group presenting a threat to the united states, the condition that an operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. Persons and interests will take place in the immediate future."

That definition of imminent seems more like a definition of not imminent.

Understandable, and I may not be making a good argument here (or making an argument I fully agree with)...... but with the way war and engagement has changed over the last twenty years and likely to change going forward, we (meaning our military) should have every available means to defeat the enemy.  And I fully believe the enemy could be a US citizen.  We can't foresee every possible scenario that may happen in the future, so keep every option available on the table.  Even if that option has virtually no chance of ever playing out.  And for me, this goes for whether we have a Republican or Democrat for President.  Libertarians don't count. ;-)

It most certainly is not.