‘After Boston, Lawmakers See Case for Use of Drones to Kill Americans’

April 24th, 2013

Via: U.S. News and World Report:

In the aftermath of the Boston bombing standoff that ended last Friday, lawmakers have changed their tune on whether a drone should ever be used to target an American citizen on U.S. soil.

The use of drones to kill American citizens is not “inherently illegal,” as long as that citizen is a “combatant,” a constitutional expert told a Senate panel considering the implications of targeted killings Tuesday.

“I think it’s not inherently illegal to target American citizens so long as American citizens are also combatants in a relevant war. Sometimes U.S. citizens can be classified as enemy combatants” Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University School of Law, told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.

“It’s not important [what technology we’re using], what matters is we’re choosing the right target,” he said. “If we’re choosing the right target then we should use the appropriate weapons, we’d be wrong to ban specific technology.”

That question has become increasingly important as senators such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul consider the possibility of American citizens being targeted by drones on U.S. soil. In September, 2011, suspected Al-Qaeda operative and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen.

Last month, Paul spent 13 hours filibustering the confirmation of CIA director John Brennan because he said he was concerned that the United States could eventually target citizens on U.S. soil. Tuesday, Paul changed his tune, telling Fox Business Network that he would have approved of a drone targeting Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash … I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

5 Responses to “‘After Boston, Lawmakers See Case for Use of Drones to Kill Americans’”

  1. GaryC says:

    Oh, right… so, let me get this straight: Now we just execute the death penalty for robbing a liquor store, as long as you are caught in the act? How about all the innocent bystanders that would be killed or maimed just for occupying the same parking lot? Wait, let me guess; collateral damage? Well, I guess if it’s good enough overseas, why should Americans be exempt? This is WAR, dammit! (cue the Twilight Zone theme)

  2. mangrove says:

    “I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash … I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

    Ah, Rand Paul, really showing his hand eh? That filibuster was all show, just as I suspected. Now he wants to have a drone KILL a common robber (who’s carrying a gun, of course) and without due process natch. USA USA USA USA!!!

    Paulbots, have ya had enough yet?

  3. j.biddy says:

    Good to know that filibuster was bullshit smoke and mirrors.

    Convenient how this article mentioned the extra-judicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki but made no mention of the assassination of his 16 year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The Denver born teenager was killed in a separate drone strike weeks later along with several of his cousins he was staying with.

    And what was Fmr. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ response when asked about the killing of the 16 year-old teenager? Well his father should have been a better person of course. How despicable of an excuse to kill an innocent child. I have never been more ashamed to call myself American. I truly love the place that I live, but I hate the freaking people in charge. They are criminals.

  4. Belle says:

    Wow, Rand. From not using drones to using them on common criminals instead of arrest and trial. He went way beyond the “expert” who said:

    “I think it’s not inherently illegal to target American citizens so long as American citizens are also combatants in a relevant war.”

    Combatants. In a relevant war. (Well, we are in a permanent war on everyone, which may be relevant.)

    Rand didn’t just slide down the slippery slope. He greased it and went head first.

  5. frosty says:

    Gentlemen, you stand at the entry of a very slippery slope; choose carefully how you respond to this issue of drone deployment in Law Enforcement. Do nothing, and you are (in my moral universe) complicit with the consequences. The USA is almost gone, but still recoverable – if not to it’s mythic status, then at least to a mindfull and humane society. Don’t laugh, it’s a feasible vision; drones are easier I know, and resisting drone deployment will put you in the sandbox with all the Crazies. Pick your side, pick your allies. There is no middle ground on this decline of humanity in the USA.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.