Link, Kemp?  Because I watched about 60% of the filibuster, and Rand Paul didn't even suggest that the Obama Administration was actively claiming said legal authority.  In fact, Senator Paul even stated that, eventually, they got the CIA Director nominee to concede that it was unconstitutional... but only after enough crap that he wanted an outright statement of policy from the government.

Asinine. 

Of course the commander in chief in a declared war has authority to use violence inside the United States.  Almost every war fought between 1787 and 1898 was fought on US soil.

What we have here is the further degeneracy of the USA.  Just as we have an endless war on drugs that won't be escalated to win, and a war on illegal immigrants that won't be escalated to win, and a war on poverty that exists to maintain poverty, we will now have a war on terror that won't end.  And BECAUSE it won't end, the President has to agree to fight with an open fist.  Winning is scary.

We can carry on mired in stagnation.

How can you say, the President must spare US citizens, but, he can shoot to kill if he doesn't know there are any US citizens?

You can't.

Ordering protections on citizens imposes a process, a halt to violence, until we're sure citizens are out of it.

A rational person, knowing that we've never done that in 236 years, begins to question whether warfighting authorities are limited by due process.

21st Century Americans bleat that they just discovered the Holy Grail.

BTW I heard Senator Rand Paul on Limbaugh today.  Of course he contradicted himself - saying you can't kill a citizen in his sleep or in a cafe for emailing Al Qaeda the day before, because everybody has a right to a trial and defense. And no politican can rationalize those away.

Of course, he added, you can use force if he has a rocket grenade or is building a bomb -- thus rationalizing away citizen's right to a trial and self-defense.

Under the Constitution when the Congress votes up war authority it is the President who gets to choose.  If Congress can't stand it, it can refuse the war authority or impeach the President.

That's not good enough; Senatus Publisque Peoriam now will serve as coimperatrix through the polls.

Okay, correction on my part: It wasn't Brennam who admitted drone strikes were unconstitutional.  It was Holder (the Justice Department guy... you know, the lawyers everyone cites here).

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ted-cruz-goa … itutional/

Yes, the answer came after 5 minutes of pulling teeth.  I'm not saying the answer was easy.  But there's actually an answer, sworn on the record, from the guy running the department who gives the legal advice to the Obama Administration.

Remember, Holder and everyone else in the debate is making a distinction here between imminent threats (the guy aiming a bazooka at the White House) and people sitting in coffee shops.  The link you cited, Kemp, clearly states that Holder believes in the imminent threat scenario, drone strikes would be legitimate.  Nobody's challenging that.  On the other extreme, there's clearly a quote (albeit after some teeth-pulling) that has the Justice Department under oath stating a legal opinion on the subject.  (Yes, they're under oath when they testify before Congress).

So no, I don't think this is a question of the Obama Administration wanting the right to bomb shoplifters at grocery stores.  Rather, I would say it's simply a matter of administrative inertia.  Making a judgment call on the constitutionality of anything is an enormous responsibility, one way or another.  Make too broad a Constitutionality judgment too soon, and you could create a seriously screwed up precedent in the future.

Does this mean I disagree with Paul?  Absolutely not.  The filibuster was a good method to shake things up and try to goad the Administration to engage in the debate.  That's what a filibuster is: a way for a minority to shake things up and get some awareness of an issue out there.  But agreeing with Paul doesn't mean you have to assume that the problem was a government trying to get the right to bomb Starbucks... particularly when Paul doesn't even take that stance (though he certainly could have if he thought it was an honest evaluation of the situation).

Chris

Posse Comitatus Act

And as for Libertarians... They can get what... 5 Senators and 20 Reps at best, and half of those party line voting Democrats? Ron Wyden being an example.

I would love the death of the Establishment side of the Party but this event is not what will do it. They will take a beating, return, get trashed, then be finally gone with the return of Conservatism. This I know for fact.

Fair enough.

Except for one thing: If I'm right... then it's not "about that" because the facts upon which you're basing the argument that this is linked to that... fundamentally aren't there.  I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in the above.  However, if the Department of Justice has said, under oath, that they can't constitutionally use drones against civilians except in an imminent threat, preventing 9/11 right before it happens-esque scenario... then the debate that's actually happening on the Senate floor is absolutely not the debate you're talking about, and this is at best an utter distraction from the topic (the drone debate occurring in the Senate).

One problem, though: There is absolutely no contradiction between your link and my link.  There was no "change" in policy.  It's just a clarification.

These are from your link.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an "extraordinary circumstance" but has "no intention of doing so," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday.

...

The Obama administration, Holder said, rejected the use of military force where "well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat." But in theory, it'd be legal for the president to order such an attack under certain circumstances, Holder said.

...

"For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.

*********************

Your cite.  Gives two scenarios of when drone strikes would be usable in the US.  It cites no other scenarios.

Those scenarios are still on the table as scenarios in which drone strikes could occur.  As of my Holder quote, those were on the table.  The only difference... is that a clarification occurred outside scenarios such as those two.  Whereas before, the White House said "we would not do this, it's inappropriate, normal means for dealing with such are sufficient..." the Holder quote I gave simply adjusts that to replace "inappropriate" with "unconstitutional."

Yes... Obama does claim the right that, in an imminent combat situation, drones could be used to bomb threatening Americans.  But guess what: the US could do that anyway.  If you staged an armed Libertarian uprising against the Obama Administration, Obama would be absolutely in his right to bomb you.  Does that mean Obama has the moral high ground?  No.  It just means the conflict would have crossed the line between political and military.

Where, in either of our links, does Eric Holder outright say that he wants to reserve the right to bomb Americans out of combat?  This is what I asked you from the start.  I'm looking at your link, and it still indicates only the imminent threat scenario that was reiterated in my quote.

Am I missing something?  Please copy/paste for me the part where he literally says he wants to bomb out-of-combat Americans in America, so I know what you're talking about, cause I could be missing it here.  Cause remember, you're saying he "literally" said he wanted the right to bomb out-of-combat Americans.  If it's literal, as you say, there should be a quote outright saying exactly that.  I'm not seeing it.

Considering he already admitted that his evidence wasn't up to date in regards to either the filibuster itself or the Holder congressional testimony, that characterization of Kemp is definitely worth challenging, at least right now.

This isn't exactly a debate in which I'm aiming to get Kemp to tear down his whole philosophy.  Hell, my argument is entirely that, even if we spot Kemp 100% that the Obama Administration is arming for a war against the domestic population (i.e., even if I give the general philosophical narrative full truth value), it doesn't mean this drone issue was within that, given the specific facts at hand in the drone debate (i.e., given the facts at hand, it's very possible Obama was preparing every other form of warfare against the American population, but not drones).  So yeah, he can keep his philosophy for all I care right now. 

If an insurrection had the goal of replacing our corrupt leaders who use government to commit illegal acts, Obama would not have the legal authority to use drones to attack the rebels. Government loses all legal authority, and laws cease to have meaning, when those tasked with law enforcement violate the laws they are charged with protecting and enforcing.

That is tyranny, and tyrants hold no legal authority over the free and sovereign people of the United States, as protected under our Constitution. Such tyrants form governments of men, not laws, and must be eliminated if a lawful and legitimate government is to be reinstated as required by the Constitution (law, not men).

Authoritarians hold no "legal" authority. They're authoritarians. They are the "law," such as it is. There is no measure of "legal" under such a system, only the will of the autocrats. You could call their will the "law" and say they had absolute "legal" authority, but those would be redefining those words.

This is why I'm not fixated on the specific language used. They're lawyers and politicians. They're liars. They stretch words and mislead worse than I ever legally could, and I'm in advertising.

The point is that he (Holder, Obama, anyone from the administration) does claim legal authority to do it, and he does not limit it specifically to combating insurrection.

The point is that Obama claims the legal right to bomb American citizens in America, a power not granted to him under the Constitution. Holder only said no to a very specific question. He left the door open to armed drone strikes on the American people far beyond anything the Constitution grants for defense of legitimate government against armed rebellions.

The framers of the US Constitution dealt with insurrection between their war of rebellion and the formation of their constitution. The Constitution legally permits the executive branch defend its sovereignty against internal threats. The Obama administration claims the legal authority to do far more than defend itself against internal threats. Did Holder point to the Constitution and the specific powers it gives the executive branch? No. Did he point out that the Obama administration believes it has those powers specifically, and no more or less? No. He left the door open to far more activity than is granted in the Constitution. He claims far more authority than is granted in the Constitution.

Holder is an attorney working as the top lawyer for a president who is a legal scholar. Obama and Holder didn't refer to the powers granted to them in the Constitution to clarify what powers they claimed to have, because they claim more powers than it grants them. Of course they didn't say outright "we want to be able to bomb Americans who are a threat to us politically." They'll never say that, even when they do it.

But they didn't rule using drone strikes to eliminate political enemies which they can broadly interpret the Constitution to define as "imminent threats" to the United States. People in the media exposing corruption and tyranny could motivate people to resist tyranny. To resist government. That could be viewed as an imminent threat. Media voices could be silenced with drone strikes constitutionally, by that broad reading. They'd be combatants, sort of. They'd be threats.

And Obama and Holder won't rule it out, despite a month and a half of pressure from members of the legislature and years of pressure from sovereign Americans. (Many protested the Bush policies which paved the way for what Obama is doing now.)

Einstein, I wasn't aware of Holder's latest testimony. It had nothing to do with a URL. I wasn't up to date on the subject. Learn to read. You're embarrassing yourself. Again.

As The Great Eye points out, I'm arguing that there's much more significance to this topic than just Obama and Holder refusing to say who they think they have the legal authority to bomb with drones, and that there's much more significance to their delaying saying the tiny bit that they have. He disagrees. So we're talking about it. Neither of us expects to convince the other of the wisdom their position, but it's good to state and read the best cases for a position.

This stuff isn't complicated. Maybe you can learn something from it.

The Yell, Holder didn't limit the legal authority to bomb Americans he claims the administration has to what you're referring to. He claims more. That he is legally permitted to do less than he claims is irrelevant.

"A federal appeals court on Friday said Customs and Border Protection officers cannot confiscate or download every laptop or electronic device brought into the U.S., ruling that people have an expectation their data are private and that the government must have “reasonable suspicion” before it starts to do any intensive snooping.
In a broad ruling, the court also said merely putting password protection on information is not enough to trigger the government’s “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a more intrusive search — but can be taken into account along with other factors."

“...But in today’s watershed ruling, the court drew a line in the sand and recognized that the vast amount of personal information and sensitive data on laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices is worthy of Fourth Amendment protection,” said Michael Price, a lawyer for the Brennan Center for Justice.

"In the case before the court, officers in Lukeville, Ariz., stopped Howard Cotterman as he came across the border and checked his name through records, discovering he had prior convictions for sex offenses, including child molestation. The officers found laptops and cameras in his vehicle and looked for child pornography, but were blocked by his password protection.
They let him go but kept his laptops and one camera, took them to a forensics office and copied all the information off the laptops. They eventually got into the password-protected files and found hundreds of images of child pornography, including Mr. Cotterman molesting a child.
Mr. Cotterman had put some of the files behind his password protection and had erased others, but the government analysts were able to reconstruct those files.
The court said that the government is allowed to perform an inspection at the border and to look at computers and cameras, but said to go deeper would raise major questions about government snooping.

“It is little comfort to assume that the government — for now — does not have the time or resources to seize and search the millions of devices that accompany the millions of travelers who cross our borders. It is the potential unfettered dragnet effect that is troublesome,” Judge McKeown wrote.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … z2N48Ld9Ua

Oh yeah, that's one to feel good about

I have no problem refining "due process" and making laws which are more specific to avoid technicalities which weren't violations of rights. I have no problem with laws making a liiiittle wriggle room in instances of extenuating circumstances, presuming it's clearly spelled out what specific types of circumstances allow for what specific possible exceptions to what specific laws/rights/regulations.

But giving the executive branch the right to label anyone a terrorist and detain them indefinitely without any process whatsoever (even Bush gave them secret trials) is problematic. Because there's no check on who he calls Al Qaeda and who doesn't get a trial.

It's not that I'm not concerned about terrorists getting off on technicalities. I'm happy to see those technicalities reviewed and such misjustice avoided in the future. I'm concerned about Americans not getting a trial or the chance to defend their freedom purely because an administration, without any checks on its authority, labels them Al Qaeda, terrorist, etc.

Remember that the current administration and its DHS regularly reveal in memos that they're more worried about "right-wing" "freedom" loving terrorists than they are foreign Islamist extremists. They want these unchecked powers supposedly to fight terrorism, and it's people who value the Constitution who they're most worried about as terrorists. Do the math.

It's a clear violation of the Constitution to detain American citizens without due process. Due process can be modified if it's not ideal. But if the Obama administration wants to do what it's doing, legally they need to change the 5th Amendment. Declaring an infinite war and declaring that any American citizen, out of any sort of combat, can be declared a part of that "war" is a joke of a legal way to avoid the 5th amendment. Courts should have immediately squashed this violation of law.