Paul’s drone resolution Democrats refuse to allow a vote on

How can anyone (right or left) disagree with this... where are the Democrats on this issue?

Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that:

1. The use of drones to execute, or to target, American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the Constitutional due process rights of citizens.

2. The American people deserve a clear, concise, and unequivocal public statement from the President of the United States that contains detailed legal reasoning, included but not limited to the balance between national security and due process, limits of executive power and distinction between treatment of citizens and non-citizens within and outside the borders of the United States, the use of lethal force against American citizens, and the use of drones in the application of lethal force within the United States territory.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 ... a-vote-on/

Oh silly me... I answered my own question... the Democrats and the Obama administration objects to this.

If the Democrats want to show they support the President, why don't they vote this down easily? Harry Reid by refusing to permit the bills from the House to be voted on is denying American voters the ability to see where their Senators stand. Does he not trust his own party members?

ahhhh.....the chicken sh*t filibuster.....LOL.

It is always interesting to see when an issue doesn't break along partisan lines. Republicans John McCain and Lindsay Graham are denouncing the filibuster, Obama is saying nothing, and noted liberals like John Cuzack and others are asking why liberal Democrats are not questioning drone usage.

FredHayek wrote: It is always interesting to see when an issue doesn't break along partisan lines. Republicans John McCain and Lindsay Graham are denouncing the filibuster, Obama is saying nothing, and noted liberals like John Cuzack and others are asking why liberal Democrats are not questioning drone usage.

Because they put their politics above the constitution... oops... we're talking about Democrats aren't we?

The use of drones to execute, or to target, American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the Constitutional due process rights of citizens.

The use of ANYTHING to execute or target ANYONE that poses NO IMMINENT THREAT is a violation of Human Rights let alone our due process rights. It should not matter if you are a US citizen or not.

2. The American people deserve a clear, concise, and unequivocal public statement from the President of the United States that contains detailed legal reasoning, included but not limited to the balance between national security and due process, limits of executive power and distinction between treatment of citizens and non-citizens within and outside the borders of the United States, the use of lethal force against American citizens, and the use of drones in the application of lethal force within the United States territory

I do believe that there may be some set of circumstances when a strike on a target inside the US might be waranted. I would like some clarification on when, how and where these circumstances would be appropriate. For example a drone strick on some bozo traveling across the open desert or planes with a dirty nuke or bio weapon might be cool by me. Think if we knew what McVeigh was planning ahead of time and thought the best way to stop him was when he was alone in his truck on some isolated stretch of highway on the way to his 'final destination'.

Or ,you got some jihadist wannabe in a shack near the outskirts of the Mojave that is known to be making some nasty plans. Why not turn him into dust rather then give him the chance to get away or take out some of our field agents in the process of aprehending him?

I’d think that concise, constitutionally legal rules can be drawn up to clarify the meaning of “imminent threat” here, without trampling any rights to due process under normal circumstances.

Isn't that what Sen. Paul was seeking to clarify with his filibuster?

Sounds like it. Would you be OK with a drone strike inside the US against somebody (foreign or US citizen) if they met a certain criteria and were an iminent threat?

Photo-fish wrote: Sounds like it. Would you be OK with a drone strike inside the US against somebody (foreign or US citizen) if they met a certain criteria and were an iminent threat?

I think it would make sense to put #1 to bed first. Then tackle #2.

Quote:

Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that:

1. The use of drones to execute, or to target, American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the Constitutional due process rights of citizens.

2. The American people deserve a clear, concise, and unequivocal public statement from the President of the United States that contains detailed legal reasoning, included but not limited to the balance between national security and due process, limits of executive power and distinction between treatment of citizens and non-citizens within and outside the borders of the United States, the use of lethal force against American citizens, and the use of drones in the application of lethal force within the United States territory.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/20 ... a-vote-on/