Rand Paul Filibusters John Brennan, old school style

[Berkut]

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

What nuance might that be?

[Admiral Yi]

On the one hand I agree that the use of deadly force is what it is, and the means of delivery shouldn't make any difference.

On the other hand I think drones do raise the issue of communicating with the target and offering them a chance to surrender peacefully. 

[derspiess]

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

What nuance might that be?

The difference between a general question of killing US citizens on US soil and the more specific question of killing non-combatant US citizens posing no imminent threat on US soil.

[Berkut]

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

What nuance might that be?

The difference between a general question of killing US citizens on US soil and the more specific question of killing non-combatant US citizens posing no imminent threat on US soil.

The answer to either question has not changed since Obama came into office, nor has this administration claimed that it has changed - so the answer is already known, Paul know what it is, so why ask it?

Answer: politics.

[derspiess]

What's your opinion on the specific question.  And don't say "politics" 

[fhdz]

Quoting Glen Greenwald and his other foreign policy/civil liberties oddities make him a mental.

But there's always a place for that in politics.

Edit: However I love that some liberals like Wyden (who I quite like) are coming out to join him

Wyden's awesome.

[derspiess]

So say a bunch of Muslim terrorists have high-jacked a plane full of Americans, and they're intending to fly it into the Pentagon.

Would it be appropriate to shoot it down? If yes, would it be acceptable to use drones to do so, if for whatever reasons that would be the safest or most expedient way to do so? And if drones are okay for that sort of action, how should the policy be worded to make that clear?

I haven't heard anyone claim that it wouldn't be appropriate to shoot it down.  In fact that came up last night.

But the question isn't really relevant to the discussion, as we'd be targeting foreign combatants posing a direct threat.  Innocents would be killed as well (the same as they would in a crash) but they wouldn't be the targets.

[Berkut]

What's your opinion on the specific question.  And don't say "politics" 

What difference does my opinion make?

I don't think the US should be killing US citizens who do not pose an imminent threat on US soil...but that doesn't mean that there could not be a situation where it happens, and happens in a manner that is legal and necessary.

Indeed, I am pretty sure the US federal government killed many non-combatant US citizens who did not pose an immediate threat on US soil, say during the Civil War.

What does immediate threat mean anyway? If a US citizen is holding a gun and is shot by a sniper, is that legal?

That is the entire point to this "question". There is no simple answer except "yes", but that answer has only political utility, since the real answer is "Yes, but only under very specific circumstances, and those circumstances contain serious amounts of scrutiny and after the fact risk to any US agent that decides to use such power - so the real answer is, well...maybe?". Which we all know is the answer, but the point of asking it to just try to force out the "Yes" while ignoring the rest so people can run around like douchebags screeching about how Obama says he can drone strike US citizens whenever he feels like it.

[derspiess]

Avoid, avoid, avoid.  I see why you voted for Obama.

[frunk]

On the one hand I agree that the use of deadly force is what it is, and the means of delivery shouldn't make any difference.

On the other hand I think drones do raise the issue of communicating with the target and offering them a chance to surrender peacefully.

I don't see how it would be any easier if it was a fighter plane instead of a drone.  Is the pilot going to land and ask the target to surrender?

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see how it would be any easier if it was a fighter plane instead of a drone.  Is the pilot going to land and ask the target to surrender?

I don't see it either.  But no one has proposed deploying F16s against US citizens that present an imminent threat AFAIK.

[Berkut]

Avoid, avoid, avoid.  I see why you voted for Obama.

I answered your question, and you are the only one avoiding anything here, because you don't like the actual answer.

You haven't responded to a single point made, and rather just channel Paul and sit there blathering on without actually communicating anything.

[KRonn]

I'm no Rand Paul supporter, but it seems to me there's merit in wanting the current administration to nail down its drone policy a wee bit...

Agreed on that. And I think Rand Paul has some decent support among both parties for some policy definitions.

[CountDeMoney]

And I think Rand Paul has some decent support among both parties for some policy definitions.

John McCain and Lindsay Graham called him to the carpet today, though.

[Barrister]

Apparently Eric Holder sent Sen. Ryan the following letter today:

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.