Skip to comments.Graham, Paul split on U.S. drone strikes, impact of upcoming $85B spending cuts
Posted on 02/17/2013 3:44:04 PM PST by NoLibZone
op Senate Republicans disagreed Sunday over who should authorize drone strikes on Americans suspected of terrorism.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., affirmed his position that a federal court, not President Obama, should make the decision, while Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Sunday that having a court decide would be the worst thing in the world.
The issue of using unmanned aircraft, known as drones, has been a controversial issue since Americans learned last year that Obama was secretly and personally ordering such strikes.
The issue returned to the forefront last week when the president agreed to give House and Senate intelligence committees access to a classified legal opinion on using drones to kill U.S. terror suspects on foreign soil.
Paul, also on "Fox News Sunday," attempted to clarify his position. He said he was primarily focused on Americans on U.S. soil but also concerned about Americans abroad.
He said Americans suspected of terrorism should have their day in court before a hell fire missile comes at them.
If you have a grenade launcher on your shoulder and firing at Americans, by all means, Paul said.
Obama also said last week there has never been a drone strike on a U.S. citizen on American soil and that he will work with Congress on a way to be more open with the public about the U.S. drone program.
However, Paul said he was concerned about Obama saying only that he doesnt intend to use domestic drone strikes.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/17/graham-paul-split-on-us-drone-strikes-impact-upcoming-85b-spending-cuts/#ixzz2LCcBDdMf
Well, at least as long as its them doing the assassinating.
Graham’s response to obama’s ability to use drones was very disturbing this morning. He seems to “trust” obama in his CIC role to do what is right.
This morning, Rand Paul brought up Brennan’s testimony in which Brennan claimed obama had the authority based on powers already given to him (I believe from authorizing going in to Afghanistan), and that those powers had no “geographical limits”. Geographical limits??????? sounds like the US is not off limits for drone strikes on anyone as long as it can be justified to be “terror related”.
Let me see if I understand this.
A judge has to approve wire tapping and electronic surveillance. But the government wouldn’t need judicial approval to use drones as surveillance, possibly even killing citizens?
Isn’t that a lop-sided argument on priorities?
Yeah, accountability sucks ass.
I see no daylight between Lindsey Graham's positions and the positions of the most ardent, freakishly leftist pol.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation
Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
Absent that- or other- specific authorization the president, whoever he is, is constitutionally authorized to use military or other deadly force to protect the nation from imminent attack.
Assasination of Americans on foreign soil should be in consultation with members of congress just as any act of aggresion on foreign soil. It’s a diplomatic matter.
On American soil assassination would only be the result of attempted arrest and subject to judicial review.
But if the president has to do it he better do it and suffer the consequences.
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.