Wall Street Journal slams Rand Paul's "Drone Rant"

Some of you half-wits would do well to read today's editorial from those notoriously liberal, Obama-loving editors at the Wall Street Journal.



>>>Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing. As a snow storm descended on Washington, the Kentucky Republican's old-fashioned filibuster Wednesday filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship.

Shortly before noon, Senator Paul began a talking filibuster against John Brennan's nomination to lead the CIA. The tactic is rarely used in the Senate and was last seen in 2010. But Senator Paul said an "alarm" had to be sounded about the threat to Americans from their own government. He promised to speak "until the President says, no, he will not kill you at a café." He meant by a military drone. He's apparently serious, though his argument isn't.

Senator Paul had written the White House to inquire about the possibility of a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on American soil. Attorney General Eric Holder replied that the U.S. hasn't and "has no intention" to bomb any specific territory. Drones are limited to the remotest areas of conflict zones like Pakistan and Yemen. But as a hypothetical Constitutional matter, Mr. Holder acknowledged the President can authorize the use of lethal military force within U.S. territory.

This shocked Senator Paul, who invoked the Constitution and Miranda rights. Under current U.S. policy, Mr. Paul mused on the floor, Jane Fonda could have been legally killed by a Hellfire missile during her tour of Communist Hanoi in 1972. A group of noncombatants sitting in public view in Houston may soon be pulverized, he declared.

Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane.

Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al Qaeda, so Mr. Holder is right that the U.S. could have targeted (say) U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had he continued to live in Virginia. The U.S. killed him in Yemen before he could kill more Americans. But under the law Awlaki was no different than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in World War II, were captured and executed.

The country needs more Senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he's talking about.<<<

It's a simple question. Can the President order a drone strike on an American citizen on American soil who is not actively engaged in a violent attack against the government? Why won't the administration answer? Rand Paul was right. Nobody disputes that when someone has a gun or grenade launcher, or is flying planes into buildings that the government can use deadly force to stop the attack. But if a person suspected of terrorism is simply sitting at home, or in a restaurant, or something, does the President's authority to order a drone strike on American soil extend to that? That is all that Senator Paul wanted answered. I want it answered, too.

Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al Qaeda, so Mr. Holder is right that the U.S. could have targeted (say) U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had he continued to live in Virginia. The U.S. killed him in Yemen before he could kill more Americans. But under the law Awlaki was no different than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in World War II, were captured and executed. Originally Posted by timpage

I'm pretty sure that the Nazis that came ashore on Long Island during WWII were arrested and given trials before execution.

Did the Wall Street Journal really mean to use that example?

It's a simple question. Can the President order a drone strike on an American citizen on American soil who is not actively engaged in a violent attack against the government? Why won't the administration answer? Rand Paul was right. Nobody disputes that when someone has a gun or grenade launcher, or is flying planes into buildings that the government can use deadly force to stop the attack. But if a person suspected of terrorism is simply sitting at home, or in a restaurant, or something, does the President's authority to order a drone strike on American soil extend to that? That is all that Senator Paul wanted answered. I want it answered, too. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

no.. Holder was smart enough to know Paul wasnt ... end of story

and why does a president need to answer a stupid question some teapuke or libtardian doesnt know?

Why do you accept whatever the President says, or does not say, and always refute any criticism of the President or his administration?

Oh yeah, you are still receiving messages from the great Obamatron in Chicago. That is why you parrot the Obama party line.

Do YOU think the President can authorize the killing of an American citizen, on American soil, who is not actively engaged in an act of terrorism? What say you, CBJ7?

Why do you accept whatever the President says, or does not say, and always refute any criticism of the President or his administration?

Oh yeah, you are still receiving messages from the great Obamatron in Chicago. That is why you parrot the Obama party line.

Do YOU think the President can authorize the killing of an American citizen, on American soil, who is not actively engaged in an act of terrorism? What say you, CBJ7? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I didnt accept anything, the facts are the facts. the POTUS of any cloth doesnt have the power you stupidly suggest ...

You and the rest of the idiots are the ones accepting the argument Paul choked on, whithout knowing the facts ...

SWAT snipers take out American Citizens on American soil on a regular basis without arresting them and giving them a trial ...

toss out the word 'drone" and the teapukes go apeshit crazy .. to hell with the fact terrorists have the intention and ABILITY to cause more damage to our society than a whacked out husband holding a pistol to his old ladys head who just got his ass blown off by a sniper ..

SWAT snipers take out American Citizens on American soil on a regular basis without arresting them and giving them a trial ...
ONLY IF THEY ARE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO SOMEONE'S LIFE. Deadly force has always been permitted in those situations. The hypothetical that was given was killing someone who was identified as a terrorist on American soil - even if he was not engaged in combat at that time.

toss out the word 'drone" and the teapukes go apeshit crazy .. to hell with the fact terrorists have the intention and ABILITY to cause more damage to our society than a whacked out husband holding a pistol to his old ladys head who just got his ass blown off by a sniper .. Originally Posted by CJ7

Do you not see the switch you just pulled?

You went from a scenario where you kill the husband who was about to kill his wife (immediate threat to life) to a scenario where you kill a terrorist merely for intent and ability.

If he is out of our reach, then we have no choice but to use lethal military force to kill him - before he goes back into hiding.

But if he is one our soil - and therefore within out reach - you cannot justify killing him for what he might do in the future.