Senator Rand Paul is currently filibustering Brennan nomination

[bedstuy]

But if somebody is "on the battlefield", the rules are different.  And when it comes to terrorism, such a person is essentially always on the battlefield.

The rules of war are different.  But, nobody is going to say that United States territory is a battlefield.  We would have to at least try to arrest a terrorism suspect in the US.

How do you figure?  Isn't U.S. territory the most important battlefield in the war on terror?

The United States can arrest anyone it needs to arrest on US soil.  There are no Al Qaeda controlled areas of the United States.  I really don't understand what you're worried about. 

No, the U.S. can't just go around arresting people on U.S. soil.

People are arrested every single day.  What do you mean?

But if somebody is "on the battlefield", the rules are different.  And when it comes to terrorism, such a person is essentially always on the battlefield.

The rules of war are different.  But, nobody is going to say that United States territory is a battlefield.  We would have to at least try to arrest a terrorism suspect in the US.

"[In the NDAA] the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”--Sen. Lindsey Graham

If the entire world is a battlefield, it's a meaningless term.  Plus, what Lindsey Graham thinks is  not necessarily relevant.  You can't detain an American citizen, captured on American soil, indefinitely.  That's not going to fly.

[Donerail]

But if somebody is "on the battlefield", the rules are different.  And when it comes to terrorism, such a person is essentially always on the battlefield.

The rules of war are different.  But, nobody is going to say that United States territory is a battlefield.  We would have to at least try to arrest a terrorism suspect in the US.

"[In the NDAA] the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”--Sen. Lindsey Graham

If the entire world is a battlefield, it's a meaningless term.  Plus, what Lindsey Graham thinks is  not necessarily relevant.  You can't detain an American citizen, captured on American soil, indefinitely.  That's not going to fly.

Yes, you can. That's what the NDAA (FY 12) does.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But if somebody is "on the battlefield", the rules are different.  And when it comes to terrorism, such a person is essentially always on the battlefield.

The rules of war are different.  But, nobody is going to say that United States territory is a battlefield.  We would have to at least try to arrest a terrorism suspect in the US.

How do you figure?  Isn't U.S. territory the most important battlefield in the war on terror?

The United States can arrest anyone it needs to arrest on US soil.  There are no Al Qaeda controlled areas of the United States.  I really don't understand what you're worried about. 

No, the U.S. can't just go around arresting people on U.S. soil.

People are arrested every single day.  What do you mean?

But if somebody is "on the battlefield", the rules are different.  And when it comes to terrorism, such a person is essentially always on the battlefield.

The rules of war are different.  But, nobody is going to say that United States territory is a battlefield.  We would have to at least try to arrest a terrorism suspect in the US.

"[In the NDAA] the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”--Sen. Lindsey Graham

If the entire world is a battlefield, it's a meaningless term.  Plus, what Lindsey Graham thinks is  not necessarily relevant.  You can't detain an American citizen, captured on American soil, indefinitely.  That's not going to fly.

There is due process when you arrest people.  There's no due process on the battlefield.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I can imagine if Dubya used drones, our leftist posters would scream bloody murder now

[Lief 🗽]

I can imagine if Dubya used drones, our leftist posters would scream bloody murder now

You can imagine whatever you want, but you'd be wrong. There's absolutely no good reason to oppose the use of drones, unless you're a luddite who wants to put soldiers' lives at risk for no reason.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I can imagine if Dubya used drones, our leftist posters would scream bloody murder now

Drones against non-citizen terrorists are fine (although once you get into assassination territory, where they're doing nothing active, you need to watch yourself), but drones against any U.S. citizen, even overseas, unless he is actively posing harm is a bad idea.

Drones, aren't inherently bad.

[Blackacre]

My opinion of Rand Paul has just moved up a couple dozen notches. Thank you Rand for focusing on the foreign issue that matters instead of harping on about Benghazi. Thanks for actually using the talking filibuster to make a point. We don't see that much. If I were there I would have helped you out with the Republicans who gave you a break. You got an answer from Holder and, instead of moving the goalposts like with the birthers, decided to be satisfied with the answer and back off.

I agree with you on very little. But in this case, you are absolutely in the right and I appreciate your effort.

[Beet]

Just want to say that I am with 100% with Van Jones and Code Pink on this one.

Seriously though, the Dems need to wake up and realize more people care about civil liberties than the establishment realizes.

[AkSaber]

I can imagine if Dubya used drones, our leftist posters would scream bloody murder now

You can imagine whatever you want, but you'd be wrong. There's absolutely no good reason to oppose the use of drones, unless you're a luddite who wants to put soldiers' lives at risk for no reason.

But doesn't being an interventionist put soldiers' lives at risk for no reason?

[traininthedistance]

I find myself caring less and less about these sorts of issues as I grow older- while I have historically tended to align with the civil libertarians, I've also had a bit of a realpolitik streak.  I've educated myself more about economics, and therefore feel more qualified to pass judgment on candidates's economic policies, but haven't really done the same on foreign policy, so as I grow older I feel myself less qualified to make these determinations by comparison.  And, I do think there's a bit of cynicism going on here- FP is realistically the one issue where Dems and Reps are least-differentiated.  Both parties are always going to be mostly comprised of hawks (or at least "realists"), and whenever the doves come out of the woodwork and steal the stage it's going to be the minority party trying to get votes more than anything else.

Anyway, all of this is to say that while I think Rand Paul's specific concerns are a touch paranoid, I also think there is a good deal of merit in trying to puncture the Washington consensus and question the ever-growing use of drones.  And I also applaud him in having the courage of his convictions in standing up and doing the talking filibuster, rather than hiding behind cloture motions.

However, I think it's more than likely that most of the other Republicans who assisted him don't actually believe the things he does, but merely wanted to grab some attention for themselves and bash Obama any way they can.  Especially that damn McCarthyite from Texas.

[bedstuy]

There is due process when you arrest people.  There's no due process on the battlefield.

There's due process AFTER you arrest people.  But, a police officer just needs probable cause and they can arrest you without a warrant.   

But if somebody is "on the battlefield", the rules are different.  And when it comes to terrorism, such a person is essentially always on the battlefield.

The rules of war are different.  But, nobody is going to say that United States territory is a battlefield.  We would have to at least try to arrest a terrorism suspect in the US.

"[In the NDAA] the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”--Sen. Lindsey Graham

If the entire world is a battlefield, it's a meaningless term.  Plus, what Lindsey Graham thinks is  not necessarily relevant.  You can't detain an American citizen, captured on American soil, indefinitely.  That's not going to fly.

Yes, you can. That's what the NDAA (FY 12) does.

You and Lindsey Graham might think that's what NDAA does.  We have to wait and see what the courts have to say on that.  I agree that it's very troubling and the Obama administration position is wrong.

[Lief 🗽]

I can imagine if Dubya used drones, our leftist posters would scream bloody murder now

You can imagine whatever you want, but you'd be wrong. There's absolutely no good reason to oppose the use of drones, unless you're a luddite who wants to put soldiers' lives at risk for no reason.

But doesn't being an interventionist put soldiers' lives at risk for no reason?

How so? I support a very, very limited troop presence, only in situations (like killing OBL) where small groups of soldiers are absolutely necessary to carry out a mission. Otherwise, we should generally not be in the business of putting troops on the ground to kill terrorists or overthrow regimes. I think Obama's strategy in this regard has been very smart and very successful.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to be killing people overseas at all. But there are terrorist leaders living in the Middle-East who need to be stopped in some way, and drone strikes are the best way to do so while minimizing both American and civilian casualties (and hopefully technology can continue to advance to further minimize collateral damage and civilian deaths).

Also, with regards to the FY 2012 NDAA provision on indefinite detention of Americans that bedstuy and SJoyce are talking about, Obama in a signing statement said he didn't believe it was constitutional and his administration wouldn't use that power anyway.

[hawkeye59]

I can imagine if Dubya used drones, our leftist posters would scream bloody murder now

You can imagine whatever you want, but you'd be wrong. There's absolutely no good reason to oppose the use of drones, unless you're a luddite who wants to put soldiers' lives at risk for no reason.

But doesn't being an interventionist put soldiers' lives at risk for no reason?

How so? I support a very, very limited troop presence, only in situations (like killing OBL) where small groups of soldiers are absolutely necessary to carry out a mission. Otherwise, we should generally not be in the business of putting troops on the ground to kill terrorists or overthrow regimes. I think Obama's strategy in this regard has been very smart and very successful.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to be killing people overseas at all. But there are terrorist leaders living in the Middle-East who need to be stopped in some way, and drone strikes are the best way to do so while minimizing both American and civilian casualties (and hopefully technology can continue to advance to further minimize collateral damage and civilian deaths).

Also, with regards to the FY 2012 NDAA provision on indefinite detention of Americans that bedstuy and SJoyce are talking about, Obama in a signing statement said he didn't believe it was constitutional and his administration wouldn't use that power anyway.

The problem with the NDAA is that there's no line-item veto. Obama wasn't about to veto the entire military budget for 2012.

[Donerail]

Also, with regards to the FY 2012 NDAA provision on indefinite detention of Americans that bedstuy and SJoyce are talking about, Obama in a signing statement said he didn't believe it was constitutional and his administration wouldn't use that power anyway.

His signing statement was basically saying that he believed he already had the power to do so. He did not say it was illegal and did not say it was unconstitutional. All he said was that he wasn't going to use it. How much his word is worth is an entirely different matter... Not one where I'd be surprised to see a

[Mr. Morden]

Jon Chait gives the best succinct response to those saying that the "presidents might order drone strikes on Americans for bad reasons" is a ridiculous hypothetical:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/john-mccain-doesnt-understand-civil-liberties.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bedstuy]

Jon Chait gives the best succinct response to those saying that the "presidents might order drone strikes on Americans for bad reasons" is a ridiculous hypothetical:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/john-mccain-doesnt-understand-civil-liberties.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that's a good argument at all.

Of course, the government may do horrible things.  But, the question is: Is there any legal right against the government doing that sort of horrible thing?  If there's no legal right, it isn't a question of civil liberties in the United States.  We can talk about general "civil liberties," but we ultimately only have law. 

Is there a legal right not to be killed by the US military in a legitimate exercise of military force?  The answer can only be no. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There's still due process when people are arrested. If you're arrested without cause, the PD gets in trouble. And again, why is US land not a battlefield in the war on terror?  You just keep saying it isn't, not why it isn't.

[Mehmentum]

Is there a legal right not to be killed by the US military in a legitimate exercise of military force?  The answer can only be no. 

Well when you put the  word 'legitamate' in front of something, of course the answer can only be no.  What if it wasn't a 'legitamate' excercise of military force.  The government has carried out unjustified invasions of countries before (Bush with Iraq, we invaded because of WMDs, yet there were none), so is it really that hard to imagine that a future president could also misuse military force? 

[bedstuy]

Is there a legal right not to be killed by the US military in a legitimate exercise of military force?  The answer can only be no. 

Well when you put the  word 'legitamate' in front of something, of course the answer can only be no.  What if it wasn't a 'legitamate' excercise of military force.  The government has carried out unjustified invasions of countries before (Bush with Iraq, we invaded because of WMDs, yet there were none), so is it really that hard to imagine that a future president could also misuse military force? 

By legitimate, I mean justified under international rules of war.  We can argue about the legality of the Iraq War, but the relevant question is the war between the US and Al Qaeda and affiliated groups.  The US is justified in using military force to defend itself against Al Qaeda.  Americans may be killed in the course of that legal military action.  But, those people have no legal remedy against the United States. 

I agree that military force is troubling.  But, the answer to that is not just tossing out make believe legal theories.  I agree there's clearly a scary level of discretion for the President going forward with this war on terror.  We ought to clarify the AUMF and have much more congressional oversight. 

[Mr. Morden]

Of course, the government may do horrible things.  But, the question is: Is there any legal right against the government doing that sort of horrible thing?  If there's no legal right, it isn't a question of civil liberties in the United States.  We can talk about general "civil liberties," but we ultimately only have law.

Then you're agreeing with me.  What I'm saying here is that Paul, and others, in the course of asking Holder about the legality of a US president ordering an air strike on a US citizen, suggest a hypothetical about the president abusing that power to kill political enemies or some such thing.  The response of some, including John McCain for example, is to laugh off the question as utterly ridiculous, since the hypothetical is so far fetched.  But the point of civil liberties arguments is to imagine that the government *could* abuse this power in such "ridiculous" situations, and thus to confront such hypotheticals with a yes or no answer on the legality.  Maybe the answer will be that such and such an action would be legal or that it wouldn't be, but we shouldn't just dismiss the question with "Oh, a president would never do that, so the question is stupid."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Of course, the government may do horrible things.  But, the question is: Is there any legal right against the government doing that sort of horrible thing?  If there's no legal right, it isn't a question of civil liberties in the United States.  We can talk about general "civil liberties," but we ultimately only have law.

Then you're agreeing with me.  What I'm saying here is that Paul, and others, in the course of asking Holder about the legality of a US president ordering an air strike on a US citizen, suggest a hypothetical about the president abusing that power to kill political enemies or some such thing.  The response of some, including John McCain for example, is to laugh off the question as utterly ridiculous, since the hypothetical is so far fetched.  But the point of civil liberties arguments is to imagine that the government *could* abuse this power in such "ridiculous" situations, and thus to confront such hypotheticals with a yes or no answer on the legality.  Maybe the answer will be that such and such an action would be legal or that it wouldn't be, but we shouldn't just dismiss the question with "Oh, a president would never do that, so the question is stupid."

I'm guessing that in the early 1900s, it would be absurd to ask, "Can a President round up people of Japanese descent and put them in "relocation camps"?"

[Silent Hunter]

Is there a legal right not to be killed by the US military in a legitimate exercise of military force?  The answer can only be no. 

Americans who work for Al-Qaeda are traitors under the 'aid and comfort' clause of the Constitution I would say.