Rand Paul and Congressional versus Executive Powers

[Dante]

Rand Paul and Congressional versus Executive Powers
Rand Paul and 9/11 Orders to shoot down plane full of Americans: Would he deny President Obama the power to do same and where do you stand? Does the Congress have the authority to grant or deny the President this power?

Depending on how Rand Paul asked his questions the Administration was hesitant to answer because Rand Paul is a whack-a-doodle wing nut who purposefully asked misleading and vague questions before finally narrowing it down. Congress has had it's share of demagogues, but with Rand Paul, Cruz, and Rubio added to the usual number of demagogues, have they set a new record for the most demagogues serving at any one time?


George Bush thought 9/11 plane had been shot down on his orders

Memoirs reveal former US president gave order to shoot down any hijacked planes before United Airlines flight 93 crashed

--

James Meikle | guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 October 2010 07.15 EDT

Bush reveals that he gave the order for any further suspected hijacked planes to be shot down after the first aircraft were flown into the World Trade Centre in New York during the 2001 terror attacks.

How many in Congress would be against this? How many here?

note: had to start a new thread because conspiracy theorist eots hijacked the other thread

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - an' don't ya fergit he's from Kentucky...

Rand Paul is Right
March 12th, 2013 - Editors Note: Jane Harman is director, president and chief executive officer of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. She was a nine-term congresswoman from California, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee from 2002 to 2006, and a principal coauthor of the Intelligence Reform Law of 2004 and the FISA Amendments of 2008.

Many disagree with Sen. Rand Paul on many issues, but he is spot-on about the need for a crystal clear framework regarding the domestic and international use of drones. Inside the United States, without exception, an American suspected of plotting a terror attack should never be targeted by an armed drone. Period. Rand Paul was right to end the 13-hour filibuster after getting a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder that provided modest clarification about presidential authority over drone use in the United States. "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Mr. Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."

Still, the letter left more questions unanswered than answered. Indeed, a simple "no" is hardly reassuring when the policy it supports is not clear. In the domestic context, drones should never be used against citizens unless there is an armed conflict on U.S. soil. In "ticking-bomb" situations - when a person in the United States is poised to push the button and create large-scale mayhem - SWAT teams and helicopters can do the work. This is consistent with long-standing law enforcement protocol.

As former chair of the congressional Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, I started to ring the alarm – as loudly as possible – about the implications of domestic satellite or drone use. Three years ago, few were paying attention to moves being made by the Department of Homeland Security and a handful of U.S. police departments to use satellite imagery or obtain drones for routine law enforcement or emergency operations. Fortunately, Congress was able to force DHS to close its National Applications Office program that gave law enforcement access to sensitive satellites.

But since that success, there has been radio silence. America has seen the "creeping executive power" movie before. Using lethal tools without public debate or clear legal authority is a mistake, a slippery slope, something we will come to regret. Why has Congress all but ignored concerns about domestic drones?

More Rand Paul is Right ? CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs