Droning On

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) knocked her colleague Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Thursday night for warning of hyperbolic scenarios during his 13-hour filibuster.

“No drone is going to be used in the United States against an American citizen walking down a street or sitting in a cafe and, you know, and then there was a stupid example of a drone being used against Jane Fonda,” Feinstein remarked on MSNBC. “I mean, I don’t think this is befitting the Senate floor.”

  Raw Story

I didn't listen to any of Paul's filibuster, and I imagine there was some stupidity, but the Fonda example is NOT stupid. Under today's standards, Jane would have been at high risk for being targeted.

She noted that Attorney General Eric Holder told Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) that the government could not kill an American citizen with a drone strike unless the person was an extraordinary and imminent threat.

On Tuesday, [Attorney General Eric] Holder had said that, while Obama had “no intention” of ordering drone strikes on US soil, the scenario could be possible if there was an “extraordinary circumstance” such as an attack similar to 9/11.

[...]

Holder made clear on Thursday that a US president does not have the power to order a drone strike against a “non combatant” American inside the United States.

Holder’s clarifying comment came in a short letter to Senator Rand Paul, who mounted a 13-hour, non-stop filibuster in the Senate demanding answers from the administration on the scope of drone policy.

“Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” Holder asked in a letter to Paul. “The answer to that question is ‘no.’”

  Raw Story

So tell me, why wouldn't he give that answer to the people who have been asking it for months? It took 14 hours of Rand Paul to get that answer? Maybe we need filibustering more often.

And, P.S., I think Paul should spend another 14 hours demanding to see the actual law, because I'm having a little bit of trouble taking Holder's “no” to heart at this point. For instance, what does “engaged in combat” mean under the law? Their definitions involving terrorism and their right to execute people are pretty elastic.

Paul said after he received the letter that it showed his battle was worthwhile.

“The reason this is important is often drones are used overseas (against) people who are not actively engaged in combat,” he told reporters.

“I’m not saying they’re not bad people or they might have previously been in combat, but the thing is, we have to have a higher standard in our country.”

Okay, there's your stupid.  (Why do they hate us?)

And here's Whitehouse Spokesliar Jay Carney:

“The issue here isn’t the technology. The method does not change the law. The president’s sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, and he is bound by the law.

“Whether the lethal force in question is a drone strike or a gunshot, the law and the Constitution apply in the same way.”

Indeed. I have no doubt that's the way they look at it. What difference does it make which tool is used?  And Carney's statement shouldn't be reassuring. We don't have to dig deep to find that our government has no problem gunning down American citizens on American soil.

  ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.