Dana Bash – Anchor Tries To Corner Rand Paul On Drone Warfare Hypocrisy
The Accurate Source To Find Quotes To Dana Bash – Anchor Tries To Corner Rand Paul On Drone Warfare Hypocrisy.”
[Dana Bash – Anchor Tries To Corner Rand Paul On Drone Warfare Hypocrisy]
[Dana Bash] Source: LYBIO.net
This is maybe a situation of you being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I bumped into you outside at the subway. Thank you very much. I’m going to – back to Ashleigh, because Ashleigh I think that you might have a question. I am going to let you go, go ahead.
I do, don’t let him go. I do. Don’t let him go. You are going to have to do the translation, because he doesn’t have the ear piece, but I am so interested in this issue because it sounds like the Senator and Eric Holder are on the same page about the cafe scenario and Eric Holder said, no, that’s not what it’s about. I would like you please to ask the Senator the Times Square bomber who butt for a bad trigger device could have blown up Times Square. If there were a drone hovering there, would that be an imminent threat that the senator would agree we could use lethal force on that American citizen. Faisal Shahzad in May of 2010.
So, Ashleigh is asking, just to sort of clarify the whole concept of imminent threat, providing us that the Times Square bomber, the almost – the person who almost blew up Times Square, would you consider that an imminent threat?
Yes, anybody bringing a weapon to a place, assembling a weapon, using a weapon, that would be. And the reason we’re so concerned about this is when you look at the drone strikes that we’re doing overseas, they show you pictures of them occasionally. CNN has probably had the unclassified pictures on TV, they’re driving in cars, walking on paths, at home. And so, the thing is that’s not a standard that I think is acceptable here.
Because the question is here you would be accused of a crime and we’ve determined whether you are guilty or not. Now, I know we can’t take people to court in battlefields and overseas locations, so it will be different. But the thing is the President needs to be explicit that the standard they’re using overseas. See there’s also been accusations they’re doing signature strikes where they don’t know the name of the person and they say well, we think there are bad people here and there’s a lot of trucks coming out or a lot of trucks going in, so they bomb a caravan. That is probably, I don’t know this that on the classified information of probably how al-Awlaki’s son was killed is they didn’t target him, he was part of a signature strike.
[Dana Bash] Source: LYBIO.net
Do you really think they would do that potentially in the United States, just bomb a caravan?
No, and that’s why they should say explicitly they won’t though. What worries me is that when I ask him the specific and direct question, you know, my job in the senate is to advice and consent, which means I’m supposed to try to get answers from the nominees and it’s our chance to have the administration be explicit.
So, I ask him these questions, it should be an easy answer. I’ve said all along it should be, no, obviously it would be unconstitutional to do signature strikes, to do targeted killing. But we are doing targeted killing of people not engaged in combat overseas. And they may have proof that they were in combat yesterday or they’re going to be in combat tomorrow, but that kind of standard can’t happen in America.
We can’t say you were communicating on with e-mail to somebody who is going to kill you. I mean, that’s not the kind of standard we have in our country and it’s really important. And when Barack Obama was a Senator, I think he would have been standing with me last night. I think he like Senator Wyden would have come to the floor and supported me yesterday.
I think he’s either forgotten his moorings or needs to be more explicit in what his beliefs are because I don’t – the Barack Obama of 2007 is not the Barack Obama who would not explicitly say we’re not going kill Americans.
I’ll play devil’s advocate. Maybe he’s a Barack Obama who has a lot more information than you do about the threats to this country.
The thing is that saying that I have some superior secret knowledge is why I’m allowed to kill Americans without any kind of new process isn’t good enough for me.
Ashleigh, any other questions?
[Ashleigh Banfield] Source: LYBIO.net
Yeah, I think you’re right. I want someone to give me a real good definition for imminent and I hope the parties will agree on what this definition is going to be. Because it seems like the senator agreed with Eric Holder and the circumstance of the Times Square bomber. That would be one circumstance of imminence where you could kill an American on American soil without a trial. Call me crazy, but that’s what it sounds like to me.
Dana Bash and please give our regards to the Senator. Thank you. That was terrific and way to hustle. You work hard, Dana and thank you, Senator.
Dana Bash – Anchor Tries To Corner Rand Paul On Drone Warfare Hypocrisy. It would be unconstitutional to do signature strikes, to do targeted killing. But we are doing targeted killing of people not engaged in combat overseas. Complete Full Transcript, Dialogue, Remarks, Saying, Quotes, Words And Text.