Shop More Submit  Join Login
×


More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
March 7, 2013
Image Size
353 KB
Resolution
820×1094
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
935
Favourites
23 (who?)
Comments
7
Downloads
9
×
Down in Flames by poasterchild Down in Flames by poasterchild
Please disseminate widely, thank you! This does not give permission to alter or claim credit for this re-mixed work, for which I retain all copyrights. The original illustration is in the public domain.

If you disagree with the views expressed here, please be sure to read my Policy Statement BEFORE you post: [link]

After Rand Paul pulled an old-fashioned "talk till you drop" 13 hour filibuster on the Senate floor yesterday, effectively stalling the Brennan nomination, the White House capitulated and ordered Attorney General Holder to send a letter stating that the Administration does not believe that it has the authority to use drones to kill American citizens at home, unless, of course, they're involved in armed combat against the United States. They had that authority already, so that's no big deal from a civil liberties point of view. Next step: outlawing the use of drones for surveillance nationwide.
Add a Comment:
 
Hidden by Owner
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Then again, Professor Ryan Goodman points out that Holder's "no" probably means "yes" if you examine what the administration means by the phrase "engaged in combat": [link]

This is the problem: precedent. I think as a rule civil libertarians are concerned not so much about the application of deadly force by drone against an al-Qaeda terrorist, but we are very concerned that the due process protections of the Constitution for American citizens be strengthened, not eroded, by a central government with incredible resources at its disposal that can, and have, been used for political suppression and repression. Governments, especially those clothed in legalism, like to operate on the basis of precedent since that seems to legitimate their actions. We don't want to permit the government to establish any precedents that would later be used to legitimate the use of military technology to surveil or repress lawful assembly, petition, and speech, even if -- especially if -- the government doesn't happen to like the particular content of that speech.
Reply
:iconnurizin:
NurIzin Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013
The real victory would be to dissolve American army (or any army actually, but American one is the nowadays most murderous and dangerous one)
Reply
:iconrekalnus:
Rekalnus Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
My goodness, we actually found a singular use for Rand Paul?? Now I've seen everything! :-)
Reply
:icondandrazen:
DanDrazen Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013   Writer
I was never worried. I figured Rand Paul was just showboating.
Reply
:iconmechatails7218:
MechaTails7218 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
I think you were the only one not worried. Obama has had one of the worst civil liberties records for any president ever, even in comparison to Bush. He signed the NDAA in the dead of night on New Years Eve in 2011, he extended the PATRIOT act, was originally a supporter of SOPA before that became unpopular, signed in HR 347, and has allowed the use of drones for spying within the US.
Reply
:icondandrazen:
DanDrazen Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013   Writer
I just find Paul Rand's showboating to be more worrisome. He comes off as crazy enough to make the worst happen while sounding high and mighty for himself.
Reply
Add a Comment: