Green Room

Paul’s drone resolution Democrats refuse to allow a vote on

posted at 12:18 am on March 7, 2013 by

Click to see, via @RepJustinAmash. And, remember, it’s non-binding.

Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that:

1. The use of drones to execute, or to target, American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the Constitutional due process rights of citizens.

2. The American people deserve a clear, concise, and unequivocal public statement from the President of the United States that contains detailed legal reasoning, included but not limited to the balance between national security and due process, limits of executive power and distinction between treatment of citizens and non-citizens within and outside the borders of the United States, the use of lethal force against American citizens, and the use of drones in the application of lethal force within the United States territory.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Non-binding too. That this wasn’t passed 12 hours ago with more than 90 votes is a sad fact for this nation… and a massive organizational failure on the part of the left in not getting out ahead of this one.

More Democrats have been exposed today than since Anthony Weiner resigned his seat. I’m just glad to see that conservatives still have some leadership capability among their ranks.

Gingotts on March 7, 2013 at 1:11 AM

There seem to be a lot of people wringing hands about the place where civil liberties end and enemy combatants begin. I’d think that concise, constitutionally legal rules can be drawn up to clarify the meaning of “imminent threat” here, without trampling any rights to due process under normal circumstances.

Suppose one stands accused of leading a terrorist group, or is suspected of being a member of a terrorist group. The simple question could be, is that group, or that person, acting in a manner whereby their immediate detention, interrogation, or execution would justifiably reduce or eliminate an imminent threat to national security? I’d think that criteria would establish a pretty high bar, where anything underneath it would be subject to due process. The process could be audited by an independent IG/review panel whose security clearance(s) allowed access to classified information.

My two cents.

Wanderlust on March 7, 2013 at 4:11 AM

Gingotts on March 7, 2013 at 1:11 AM

There hasn’t been a single centrist Democrat on national security issues since Joe Lieberman became an independent in 2006. This mob commonly accepts from Obama’s hand what it screamed bloody murder at when it thought BUSH! EVIL REPUBLICANS! might act in a remotely similar manner.

At the rate we’re going these days, by 2016 the damage done to the US by the Democrats will be practically irreparable.

Wanderlust on March 7, 2013 at 4:18 AM

And then there was the aptly named Dick Durbin, who said he really liked the resolution (really, really, I promise), and then if Rand would join him in his “bipartisan hearing”, they could talk about it then.

Who needs a hearing to figure out if the President is allowed act as an unchecked assassin?

I’d call Durbin a worm, but I have far too much respect for the best fishing bait ever invented to insult worms that way.

Bruce MacMahon on March 7, 2013 at 6:35 AM

Why do Democrats support summary executions of American citizens?

forest on March 7, 2013 at 8:22 AM

The rights enshrined in the bill of rights are not given to man by government, but are instead inalienable via our god/nature. No where in these bill of rights did I find an asterisk regarding “extraordinary circumstances”.

MoreLiberty on March 7, 2013 at 8:28 AM

At the rate we’re going these days, by 2016 the damage done to the US by the Democrats will be practically irreparable.

Wanderlust on March 7, 2013 at 4:18 AM

By 2016 whatever idiots the toothless GOP runs for POTUS/VP will literally not matter in the faintest.

MelonCollie on March 7, 2013 at 9:16 AM

And of course, Dear Liar will use the “terrorist” list drawn up by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

rbj on March 7, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Don’t be so hard on them. They’re waiting for the right time to push legislation that would outlaw such drone strikes. Of course “right time” means when a Republican resides in the White House.

ButterflyDragon on March 7, 2013 at 10:31 AM

I don’t understand why it would even be considered to blow up a terrorist, known or suspected, on US soil, with the potential collateral damage, rather than capturing them and extracting intelligence that could lead to capturing more terrorists and/or stopping a plan in progress. This ain’t the mountains of Afganistan, we have plenty of law enforcement on the ground.

Unless, of course, they just want to make someone disappear and shut up. Then it makes perfect sense.

iurockhead on March 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Don’t be so hard on them. They’re waiting for the right time to push legislation that would outlaw such drone strikes. Of course “right time” means when a Republican resides in the White House.

ButterflyDragon on March 7, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Exactly. Let us not forget that Obama wasn’t going to say anything at all on Drones until he realized there was a potential that Romney could win the election. That is when they kicked it into overdrive to draft these drone strike policies in the first place.

If Romney would have been 5-10 points behind in the polls through the whole election cycle, we stilll wouldn’t even have a position on the drone strikes from this administration.

weaselyone on March 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

It is remarkable after 8 years of Democratic screeching about Bushitler that we’re here today.

LukeinNE on March 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Lincoln, during an actual Civil War, had a number of political opponents/Southern Sympathizers thrown into POW camps where some of them died. Note one of my great grandfathers survived both Camp Douglas and Camp Chase POW Camps and one g-g-grandfather died at Camp Chase. POW Camps on both sides were not very healthy places and a number of POWS died. This was done by Presidential Order and the legalities of this action have been long debated.

I tend to give Lincoln a pass on this. During a Civil war, I’d likely give the President a pass on domestic Drone strikes as well. Dealing with enemy combatants during a time of war, requires taking the gloves off.

Having said all of that, I believe that Obama has made a drastic mistake in seeming to claim an unrestricted, except for appropriateness, right to launch unlimited drone strikes against any American anywhere, anytime that he feels is appropriate. ACLU where are you?????

Linh_My on March 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Linh_My on March 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

First of all, let me express my sympathies. A lot of good people payed the ultimate price because we let the evil of slavery metasize, and things could easily have gone worse.

And secondly, I congratulate you for not being a bitter NeoConfederate loon like Dante because of what happened to your ancestors.

The brutal fact is that in any serious war (which we haven’t seen since the 1940s), some rights have to take a backseat simply for the sake of survival, and to Hades with the liberal whiners. But we are NOT in such a war, and for Obama to seek powers that Lincoln couldn’t have dreamed of is a dangerous step.

MelonCollie on March 7, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I don’t understand why it would even be considered to blow up a terrorist, known or suspected, on US soil, with the potential collateral damage, rather than capturing them and extracting intelligence that could lead to capturing more terrorists and/or stopping a plan in progress. This ain’t the mountains of Afganistan, we have plenty of law enforcement on the ground.

Unless, of course, they just want to make someone disappear and shut up. Then it makes perfect sense.

iurockhead on March 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM

This is precisely what we’re in danger of. Obama doesn’t really have much use for intel-gathering beyond building his “enemies list”. He just wants to rule unopposed.

Going through the motions of traditional law enforcement is tiresome for a wannabe-tyrant. What he REALLY wants is just to push one button or make one phone call and make a “problem” go away, just like that, with no accountability.

MelonCollie on March 7, 2013 at 2:54 PM

If the Dems won’t support this pretty benign pap …
I would have a simpler Federal law.
FAA regulation: No armed drones (by anybody) in civilian airspace anywhere in the USA.
That would allow defending military bases with drones, and target training on those bases with enough room to do so.
And not have any worry about having to identify which government agency assassinated John Doe #25 that nobody admits to.

jhnone on March 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM

2. The American people deserve a clear, concise, and unequivocal public statement from the President of the United States that contains detailed legal reasoning

I’m pretty sure asking Obama for clear and concise details is raaaaacist or something.

malclave on March 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Democrats object to any and everything that we americans deem to be our rights.

He ’0′ runs off at the mouth with no forethought as to what he is saying.

When brought up on it, he ’0′ goes into a really stupid tirade.

His minions carry the water…

We are left out in the cold.

Thank God for Paul and Cruz and a couple others who understand our rights, which our supposed constitutional expert in the WH doesn’t.

A Pox on the dems and the RINOS’…

Scrumpy on March 7, 2013 at 9:59 PM

So yet again we see how it is ONLY the TEA Partys that remain relevant. So much for being a registered Republican today.

If not you, who?

DannoJyd on March 8, 2013 at 4:42 AM

We really need to get Reid out of his position and at least get some votes, even if they are all “nay” on the Senate floor.

At least Boehner lets a vote go forward, even if he is against the particular bill.

TWO TERM LIMIT: One in office and one in prison, of equal duration.

ProfShadow on March 8, 2013 at 9:19 AM