Rand Paul To CIA: "Can You Kill With Drones In The USA?"

[Busybody]

Rand Paul To CIA: "Can You Kill With Drones In The USA?"




Rand Paul’s Third Letter to the CIA: Can You Kill with Drones in the USA?


This letter is a few days old, but is very important for every American to be aware of. Essentially, Rand Paul is threatening to filibuster Barack Obama’s nominee for the CIA, John Brennan, due to his refusal to answer a simple question:

Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

This should not be a complicated question to answer, yet it seems Obama, Brennan and pretty much every other little power consumed bureaucrat is incapable of doing so. Below is Rand Paul’s letter reprinted in full
February 20, 2013

John O. Brennan

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. Brennan,

In consideration of your nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), I have repeatedly requested that you provide answers to several questions clarifying your role in the approval of lethal force against terrorism suspects, particularly those who are U.S. citizens. Your past actions in this regard, as well as your view of the limitations to which you are subject, are of critical importance in assessing your qualifications to lead the CIA. If it is not clear that you will honor the limits placed upon the Executive Branch by the Constitution, then the Senate should not confirm you to lead the CIA.


During your confirmation process in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), committee members have quite appropriately made requests similar to questions I raised in my previous letter to you-that you expound on your views on the limits of executive power in using lethal force against U.S. citizens, especially when operating on U.S. soil. In fact, the Chairman of the SSCI, Sen. Feinstein, specifically asked you in post-hearing questions for the record whether the Administration could carry out drone strikes inside the United States. In your response, you emphasized that the Administration “has not carried out” such strikes and “has no intention of doing so.” I do not find this response sufficient.

The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored.

Just last week, President Obama also avoided this question when posed to him directly. Instead of addressing the question of whether the Administration could kill a U.S. citizen on American soil, he used a similar line that “there has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil.” The evasive replies to this valid question from the Administration have only confused the issue further without getting us any closer to an actual answer.

For that reason, I once again request you answer the following question: Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

I believe the only acceptable answer to this is no.

Until you directly and clearly answer, I plan to use every procedural option at my disposal to delay your confirmation and bring added scrutiny to this issue and the Administration’s policies on the use of lethal force. The American people are rightfully concerned, and they deserve a frank and open discussion on these policies.

Sincerely,
Rand Paul, M.D.

United States Senator

 

[Busybody]

I know

R Paul is a CRAZY WHITE MAN

Lets blame Bush/Cheney

 

[Busybody]

I know

Da NIGGER can do no wrong

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

WhoSane Kardashian is not amused

 

[sigh]

Rand Paul To CIA: "Can You Kill With Drones In The USA?"




Rand Paul’s Third Letter to the CIA: Can You Kill with Drones in the USA?


This letter is a few days old, but is very important for every American to be aware of. Essentially, Rand Paul is threatening to filibuster Barack Obama’s nominee for the CIA, John Brennan, due to his refusal to answer a simple question:

Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

This should not be a complicated question to answer, yet it seems Obama, Brennan and pretty much every other little power consumed bureaucrat is incapable of doing so. Below is Rand Paul’s letter reprinted in full
February 20, 2013

John O. Brennan

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. Brennan,

In consideration of your nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), I have repeatedly requested that you provide answers to several questions clarifying your role in the approval of lethal force against terrorism suspects, particularly those who are U.S. citizens. Your past actions in this regard, as well as your view of the limitations to which you are subject, are of critical importance in assessing your qualifications to lead the CIA. If it is not clear that you will honor the limits placed upon the Executive Branch by the Constitution, then the Senate should not confirm you to lead the CIA.


During your confirmation process in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), committee members have quite appropriately made requests similar to questions I raised in my previous letter to you-that you expound on your views on the limits of executive power in using lethal force against U.S. citizens, especially when operating on U.S. soil. In fact, the Chairman of the SSCI, Sen. Feinstein, specifically asked you in post-hearing questions for the record whether the Administration could carry out drone strikes inside the United States. In your response, you emphasized that the Administration “has not carried out” such strikes and “has no intention of doing so.” I do not find this response sufficient.

The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored.

Just last week, President Obama also avoided this question when posed to him directly. Instead of addressing the question of whether the Administration could kill a U.S. citizen on American soil, he used a similar line that “there has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil.” The evasive replies to this valid question from the Administration have only confused the issue further without getting us any closer to an actual answer.

For that reason, I once again request you answer the following question: Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

I believe the only acceptable answer to this is no.

Until you directly and clearly answer, I plan to use every procedural option at my disposal to delay your confirmation and bring added scrutiny to this issue and the Administration’s policies on the use of lethal force. The American people are rightfully concerned, and they deserve a frank and open discussion on these policies.

Sincerely,
Rand Paul, M.D.

United States Senator

It's a valid question that should be addressed, but spinning it within the context of drones shows base partisanship and Paul should be ashamed for posing the question that way since no previous administration has had that option at its disposal. The more honest question is, has the CIA ever used any technology (or even bare hands) to kill an American on American soil? And should they? Will they ever limit themselves by answering it no? I think they should, but I doubt they ever will, under any administration.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

It's a valid question that should be addressed, but spinning it within the context of drones shows base partisanship and Paul should be ashamed for posing the question that way since no previous administration has had that option at its disposal. The more honest question is, has the CIA ever used any technology (or even bare hands) to kill an American on American soil? And should they? Will they ever limit themselves by answering it no? I think they should, but I doubt they ever will, under any administration.

1- You slept thru 2001-2008

2-WhoSane already killed several US citizens overseas, as well as a YOUNG AMERICAN BOY WHO HAD THE CRIME OF HAVING THE WRONG FATHER

3-Drones are all over the US as we speak

and the answer is simple, WHY NOT

SAY

NO?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

SIGH

You did know

That J Grenholme, when AXED if she had a problem with Obama and THIS policy

as she had with Bush

Said

"I TRUST OBAMA, DIDNT TRUST BUSH!"


I trust YOU, SIGH, get the implications

 

[Busybody]

2-WhoSane already killed several US citizens overseas, as well as a YOUNG AMERICAN BOY WHO HAD THE CRIME OF HAVING THE WRONG FATHER
?

Not that I have ANY problems with KILLING MUSLIMS, overseas or in the US




I for one don't trust Obama to stop with that, in fact, I fully expect him to STOP with Muslims and direct FIRE on AMERICANS

 

[kbate]

to me the answer is clear, of course you can kill with drone strikes within the USA, american kids are no better armoured than Pakistani kids

Just as it is stupid to risk a pilot or an expensive special forces operator when a robot piloted from the Pentagon can kill an innocent family in Pakistan for suspected collaboration with terrorists, it is wrong and stupid to risk a police officer in the USA when a simple predator strike can stop a drunk driver.

My main objection to the use of drone strikes for law enforcement is the cost of the missile is still higher than the cost of the trial and imprisonment of the suspect. We should be working on lowering the cost of missiles and allowing drone strikes for more crimes would create competition in the market - lowering prices, employing more workers and perhaps even saving the economy.

 

[Busybody]

TeeHee

 

[hogjack]

Drones will be utilized by all law enforcement agencies across the United States of America. There are BILLIONS of dollars to be made selling drones to law enforcement (and long-term maintenance, a secondary sales market, etc.).

It isn't about the law or safety or - classic - "the children". It's all about moolah, lots and lots of moolah. Just like the Red Camera programs that are pushed into cities if the right palms are greased.

There are BILLIONS to be made and the defense industry needs to sell to any market. International sales are expected to be in the hundreds of billions as India, China, Russia and many other nations get on the drone bandwagon.

 

[hogjack]

stupid to risk a police officer in the USA when a simple predator strike can stop a drunk driver.

If a drunk has the vehicle weaving around wouldn't that make it more difficult to nail 'em with a drone strike? It's easy to hit stationary targets (meth labs, corrupt financier offices, "massage" businesses) but drunk drivers alter vehicle velocity and direction.

Drones might not be as accurate but perhaps the technology and drone operators can overcome the challenge.

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

I wish busybody or his sources would learn some basic English grammar.

The answer is yes, they can. The question ought to be whether they should.

 

[ryan8558]

In the past the law was clear, the CIA was forbidden from operating inside the territorial limits of the United States, the law as it stands today is less clear, that is what Paul is addressing.

Paul is elected to the Senate. The Senate passes laws. If he thinks the law is a little ambiguous at the moment, write a new one and get it passed. Stop with all the political posturing. This is like watching two kids on a playground.

 

[Busybody]

Paul is elected to the Senate. The Senate passes laws. If he thinks the law is a little ambiguous at the moment, write a new one and get it passed. Stop with all the political posturing. This is like watching two kids on a playground.

naive

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

naive

if they wont give a simple answer to a simple question

the DUMZ wont pass any bill

 

[hogjack]

Republicans practically masturbated to the content of The Patriot Act. Their objections to US-based drone use is about as legit as Britney Spears as a brunette.

Now the Democrats - who would screamed like banshees if it were President Bush - are too mealy-mouthed to say Boo to President Obama.

Both mainstream parties LOVE the power and the military - along with Federal law enforcement agencies - are very happy to oblige. Drone-makers see the money [$$$] signs. Testing is going well in the Middle East and soon in Africa.

There's Freedom. And there's "freedom" and the "Sorta, Kinda Still the Bill of Rights". Fortunately, a new season of Dancing with the Stars will keep fat, ignorant Americans busy for a few months.

 

[ryan8558]

Naive. Maybe so. But I'm sick and fucking tired of both sides. Stop all this playground bullshit and get on with governing the country. You know, what they were fucking elected to do.

Has nothing to do with left or right, REP or DEM. They all want power and money and are afraid of losing it.

 

[ryan8558]

You're like watching Percy Dovetonsils"

WOW!! I was actually thinking of Ernie Kovacs the other day. Wouldn't it have been interesting to have him, Jonathan Winters and Robin Williams in the same room. Talk about insanity!!!

 

[Mike_Yates]

The United States is going to be turned into a mirror-image of war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan, with the American citizenry as the new enemy.

Just like US-occupied Baghdad, you will see heavily armed troops, tanks, and military helicopters and aircraft patrolling everywhere.

Don't forget house-to-house raids and armed checkpoints at every corner.

Right now, the war on terrorism is being shifted from fighting Islamic fundamentalist groups in the middle-east and onto gung-ho American citizens whom happen to be highly critical of the government's wanton erosion of their freedom and civil liberties.

As soon as they start domestic drone strikes against citizens on American soil, then we'll know that the USA is quickly becoming another third-world banana republic.