Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Paul declares 'victory' after Holder offers assurance on drones
Fox News ^ | 03/07/2013

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: Kentucky; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 113th; drones; ericholder; randpaul; randsconcerntrolls; standwithrand; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

1 posted on 03/07/2013 12:31:11 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
MORE FROM HOTAIR

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. Holder’s 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 president’s authority to order strikes on Americans.

Mr. Holder’s letter answers Mr. Rand’s 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 Paul’s 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:

“I’m quite happy with the answer,” Paul told CNN. “Through the advise and consent process, I’ve got an important answer.”


2 posted on 03/07/2013 12:32:54 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: SeekAndFind

Next thing we’ll hear, Rand will have been taken out by a Hellfire missile while having a latte at Starbucks.


4 posted on 03/07/2013 12:33:28 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("Somebody has to be courageous enough to stand up to the bullies." --Dr. Ben Carson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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!


5 posted on 03/07/2013 12:33:50 PM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Define non combatent.


6 posted on 03/07/2013 12:34:23 PM PST by Frapster (There you go again...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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. Holder’s 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 president’s authority to order strikes on Americans.

Mr. Holder’s letter answers Mr. Rand’s 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.”


7 posted on 03/07/2013 12:34:49 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
 photo LIN_zps726ba1a0.jpg
8 posted on 03/07/2013 12:35:28 PM PST by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
READ THE FULL LETTER FROM ERIC HOLDER TO RAND PAUL HERE

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.


9 posted on 03/07/2013 12:37:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Frapster
FROM THE WEBSITE OF SENATOR TED CRUZ:


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
Thursday, March 7, 2013

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:
The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law.

###


10 posted on 03/07/2013 12:40:27 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Errrr ...I Hate That Guy!


11 posted on 03/07/2013 12:40:30 PM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


12 posted on 03/07/2013 12:41:46 PM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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?

13 posted on 03/07/2013 12:41:47 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

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.


14 posted on 03/07/2013 12:45:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

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.


15 posted on 03/07/2013 12:47:30 PM PST by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The cutesieness of the letter is pathetic. Holder apparently thinks he’s making a point.


16 posted on 03/07/2013 12:47:37 PM PST by jagusafr (the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
And they trust Eric Holder and Barack Obama? And what is the definition of combatant, according to this government? I have a feeling it's not what Senator Rand Paul thinks it is.
17 posted on 03/07/2013 12:49:42 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagusafr

RE: The cutesieness of the letter is pathetic. Holder apparently thinks he’s 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.


18 posted on 03/07/2013 12:50:13 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
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?

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.

19 posted on 03/07/2013 12:55:58 PM PST by kevao (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

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?


20 posted on 03/07/2013 12:58:36 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson