Rand Paul Filibusters John Brennan, old school style

[derspiess]

I think the question being asked is more specific than that.  And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways.  I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.

What's the correct answer in your opinion?

There's room for debate, but I'd say no.  Mind you, that's to the more specific question I mentioned above, not to Berkut's more general question (which I'd answer yes if it were the actual question being asked).

[Martinus]

I'm pleasantly surprised at you people.  I expected this thread to be full of LOOOL PAUL IS A MORAN comments, based on the fact that he's a) from Kentucky, and b) is related to Ron Paul, facts which must automatically make him stupid and wrong.

I thought everyone just assumed that it's a given so why state the obvious?

People's comments essentially amount to saying they like when politicians make fools out of themselves for the sheer entertainment value. I wouldn't consider it resounding support.

[Martinus]

Anyway, the question being asked is whether the administration thinks it's constitutional to use a drone to kill a non-combatant US citizen within US borders.

Isn't the answer really "it depends"?

[Eddie Teach]

Isn't the answer really "it depends"?

Lawyers. 

[Martinus]

Well, it does. Jake's example is one where one would think that the answer would be "yes". But giving the "yes" answer without any context to the question posed would be simply misleading.

If you add to that the fact that the GOP/Fox side is the opposite of what you could call "intellectual honesty", I don't see any reason why the administration should choose to play this game.

[Razgovory]

Yeah.  10 years of drone strikes on Muslims, that's fine.  Wait, does that mean it can be used against white people?  Unconstitutional!

Heh.  I have been against the drone strikes against Muslims and you told me that made me morally...um...what was it?  Weak or something because that made me opposed to both parties.  Now that somebody is finally arguing to only go as far as limit their use domestically now I am a racist.  All those who do not support unlimited use of drones are morally bankrupt and racist I guess.

We have a search function, find the thread.

[CountDeMoney]

I think the question being asked is more specific than that.  And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways.  I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.

When you ask a lawyer like Holder, you'll never get a "yes" or "no" answer.  Lawyers are physically incapable of thinking in those terms.  You know that.

[Berkut]

I think the question being asked is more specific than that.  And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways.  I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.

What's the correct answer in your opinion?

There's room for debate, but I'd say no.  Mind you, that's to the more specific question I mentioned above, not to Berkut's more general question (which I'd answer yes if it were the actual question being asked).

What about making my general question more specific could possibly change the answer from yes to no?

[Berkut]

The real question is not "Is it ok for the government to use a drone strike against a US citizen in the US"

it is

"What does the federal government possibly have to gain by answering the question in the first place?"

They aren't answering because they want to use drones to blast US citizens, they are not answering because any answer they give will be parsed and analyzed to the nth degree, and will only serve to restrict federal ability to respond.

The entire thing is stupid. Does the federal government have the power to kill US citizens on US soil, by drone or other means?

Of course they do...under very specific circumstances. Drones don't change anything, and neither does "terrorism".

I think the question being asked is more specific than that.  And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways.  I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.

A "Yes" can certainly be parsed in many, many ways. The moment that admin says that, Fox News is running headlines of "Obama administration claims it can kill US citizens whenever it feels like!".

And really, this administration is showing a lack of spine when it comes to answering tough questions? Every administration is smart enough to know that you don't hand your political opponents political capital just because they ask you for it and are willing to throw a tantrum if you don't hand it to them.

It's not like the Bush admin was exaclty transparent when their political opponents were asking them about what circumstances they felt they had the power to torture people.

[CountDeMoney]

And really, when it comes down to brass tacks, what really is the difference between a drone and an FBI sharpshooter in a scenario where apprehension isn't an option?

[garbon]

And really, when it comes down to brass tacks, what really is the difference between a drone and an FBI sharpshooter in a scenario where apprehension isn't an option?

The latter won't kill as many bystanders as fast?

[CountDeMoney]

And really, when it comes down to brass tacks, what really is the difference between a drone and an FBI sharpshooter in a scenario where apprehension isn't an option?

The latter won't kill as many bystanders as fast?

  This is the FBI we're talking about.

[garbon]

As fast.

[Berkut]

And really, when it comes down to brass tacks, what really is the difference between a drone and an FBI sharpshooter in a scenario where apprehension isn't an option?

From a legal standpoint, nothing at all, I don't think. All kinds of practical differences of course - I am guessing using a drone inside the US if the government decided someone needed killing would never happen, for exactly those practical reasons.

On th other hand, if someone had asked the President in 1853 under what circumstances could the federal government be allowed to use cannons to shoot at masses of US citizens in an indiscriminate attempt to maim and kill as many of them as possible, I don't think too many people would be considering what would happen in another decade or so.

There are all kinds of circumstances under which the Feds can kill US citizens in the US. This is a complete non-issue - it is pure politics, not based on any kind of principle at all, unless you count "Hey, lets see how much we can make the President twist because we know he cannot really answer a question everyone knows the answer to already!" a principle. The smart move by Obama is to treat this exactly as what it is - political grandstanding, and simply refuse to answer beyond what has already been stated.

If anything, he should give some non-answer like "It is the position of this administration that advances in technology relating to the increased use of unmanned vehicles has not changed the terms and restrictions under which the federal government is charged with protecting the lives and interests our citizens, both at home and abroad."

[derspiess]

So you're not too big on nuance today, Berkut?