Remember that big drone controversy surrounding President Obama? Last month, the Obama Administration said it was theoretically possible, as well as legal, for the president to order a drone strike on an American citizen under, and I quote, "extraordinary circumstances." The administration then elaborated some on this statement by saying the president didn't possess this authority if the American citizen was "not engaged in combat."
Ever since I saw the headlines and read the reports, while I understood some Congresspeople's concerns, as well as non-politicians', I thought things were getting blown out-of-proportion. It seemed quite clear that these hypothetical drone strikes on American citizens would only occur if the person was a member of a terrorist organization and engaged in combat. It's not like the president was saying, "Ever since I embarrassed myself bowling that one time, I really hate the sport. Let's drone strike bowling alleys across this country starting tomorrow."
In any case, many Republicans in Congress went after the president for these hypothetical scenarios where the president could order such a strike on an American citizen. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was chief among this group. He went so far as to conduct a 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor to showcase his displeasure with the president on this very issue.
During this 13-hour filibuster, Paul said, "When I asked the president, 'Can you kill an American on American soil?' it should have been an easy answer. It's an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, 'No.'"
Now let's fast-forward to yesterday, where, in light of the Boston Marathon bombing, Paul said the following to the Fox Business Network - "If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I'm not against drones being used to search them."
He then said this:
"Here's the distinction - I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it's different if they want to fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
It appears as if Mr. Paul is attempting to cover his tracks in the midst of an apparent flip-flop. Does he not remember what the Obama administration said? They said a potential drone strike on an American citizen could only be ordered under "extraordinary circumstances," where the individual was engaged in combat. No offense to Rand Paul or anyone else, but relaxing in a hot tub or doing yard work doesn't qualify as an "extraordinary circumstance."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295509-rand-paul-would-have-supported-drone-use-in-hunt-for-marathon-bomber#ixzz2RKFiSOML
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/rand-paul-launches-filibuster-the-talking-kind-against-john-brennan/
Ever since I saw the headlines and read the reports, while I understood some Congresspeople's concerns, as well as non-politicians', I thought things were getting blown out-of-proportion. It seemed quite clear that these hypothetical drone strikes on American citizens would only occur if the person was a member of a terrorist organization and engaged in combat. It's not like the president was saying, "Ever since I embarrassed myself bowling that one time, I really hate the sport. Let's drone strike bowling alleys across this country starting tomorrow."
In any case, many Republicans in Congress went after the president for these hypothetical scenarios where the president could order such a strike on an American citizen. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was chief among this group. He went so far as to conduct a 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor to showcase his displeasure with the president on this very issue.
During this 13-hour filibuster, Paul said, "When I asked the president, 'Can you kill an American on American soil?' it should have been an easy answer. It's an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, 'No.'"
Now let's fast-forward to yesterday, where, in light of the Boston Marathon bombing, Paul said the following to the Fox Business Network - "If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I'm not against drones being used to search them."
He then said this:
"Here's the distinction - I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it's different if they want to fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
It appears as if Mr. Paul is attempting to cover his tracks in the midst of an apparent flip-flop. Does he not remember what the Obama administration said? They said a potential drone strike on an American citizen could only be ordered under "extraordinary circumstances," where the individual was engaged in combat. No offense to Rand Paul or anyone else, but relaxing in a hot tub or doing yard work doesn't qualify as an "extraordinary circumstance."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295509-rand-paul-would-have-supported-drone-use-in-hunt-for-marathon-bomber#ixzz2RKFiSOML
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/rand-paul-launches-filibuster-the-talking-kind-against-john-brennan/
Comments
Post a Comment