Democrats Refuse Non-Binding Resolution Limiting Presidential Drones against Non-Combatants, Too

I noted earlier that Eric Holder suggested that a law prohibiting the use of drones against non-combatant Americans in the US would be unconstitutional.

Grassley: Do you believe Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass a law prohibiting the President’s authority to use drone aircraft to use lethal force against Americans on US soil and if not, why not?

Holder: I’m not sure that such a bill would be constitutional. It might run contrary to the Article II powers that the President has.

That’s interesting background for a move Rand Paul tried at roughly hour 8 of his filibuster.

He proposed a non-binding resolution saying precisely what Grassley had laid out 10 hour earlier, voicing the position of the Senate to be opposed to the “use of drones to target Americans on American soil who pose no imminent threat.”

As I understand it, the resolution was independent from the Brennan nomination (so it would not disrupt that, aside from a vote).

But — as just one of two Democrats to show up during this filibuster (Ron Wyden showed up in support during the 3:00 hour) — Dick Durbin showed up to oppose Paul’s unanimous consent to call for that resolution.

Durbin promised his subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee would hold a hearing on drones. Nevertheless, he objected to Paul’s resolution. He suggested more Constitutional review of this simple measure was needed.

A leader of the Democratic party (and the President’s fellow Chicagoan) opposed a non-binding resolution prohibiting the use of drones in the US against non-combatants out of Constitutional concerns.

I’ve got a lot of theories why that might be. A belief this is all about making trouble for another nomination. insistence that nothing limit potential Article II claims.

But I keep thinking about the fact that there’s a wrongful death suit out there, with state secrets as the fallback claim crumbling with the public discussion.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+2Email to someone

9 Responses to Democrats Refuse Non-Binding Resolution Limiting Presidential Drones against Non-Combatants, Too

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @ThePlumLineGS @rickhasen @danieljpayne Yes, sadly, this is exactly right. There are very legitimate 1A concerns.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @theurbansherpa Didn't know that was the single thing delaying neurosurgery I don't THINK you need....
8mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @flyryan Also gotta say this, w/stuff that happened w/CISA at end, does not inspire confidence. @Susan_Hennessey @ncweaver @henryfarrell
9mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sbagen @addiestan @theprospect Bernie Sanders calling PP part of the establishment was "demeaning"?? Come on.
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @flyryan And was it ineffective bc not enough like NTOC or too close to offense? @Susan_Hennessey @ncweaver @henryfarrell
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @flyryan Which, I assume, is why @Susan_Hennessey used it. But does that also mean IAD ineffective? @ncweaver @henryfarrell
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @flyryan Is the arg that IAD wasn't effective so it all needs to be NTOC? But doesn't that beg Q? @Susan_Hennessey @ncweaver @henryfarrell
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @flyryan Right. I'm asking why we had to move all defense to that model. @Susan_Hennessey @ncweaver @henryfarrell
19mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @flyryan Nothing's in IAD anymore per @Susan_Hennessey. It's Operations. But she used it as proof of value of merger @ncweaver @henryfarrell
22mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Susan_Hennessey You can't do a merger like that and claim NSA will "enhance" cybersecurity. It's not its job. @henryfarrell @ncweaver
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Susan_Hennessey Why wasn't having NTOC enough? Why hasn't it been doing defense better? @ncweaver's Q abt Dual_EC... @henryfarrell
25mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Susan_Hennessey Arg might be more persuasive if it tried to explain imperative. NSA's release on this was fluff. @henryfarrell @ncweaver
28mreplyretweetfavorite