Two of president Obama's key nominees are now facing some major roadblocks in the Senate.
Senator John McCain now says he may filibuster Chuck Hagel's nomination to lead the Pentagon if the White House doesn't provide more information about Obama's "actions and orders" the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Paul endorses filibuster of Hagel
And Senator Rand Paul says he's ready to put a hold on John Brennan's nomination to head the CIA, if he doesn't get answers from the administration about the use of drones in the United States.
Outfront tonight: Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
It's interesting to hear the Senator about the possibility that Hagel did not say "no" when asked about killing Americans without judicial cause. Well, the Senator needs to take a look at most state laws. Law Enforcement is already allowed to kill americans without judicial cause or approval. It's call Imminent Threat and is covered under Law Enforcement agency's Use of Force policies.
These polices often convey that Deadly Force may be used on a suspect (even if they are running away) if the person has committed a serious and/or violent crime, or is in the process of committing the crime, will cause further harm and has the means to carry it out. For instance, a suspect has robbed a store, used a knife, wielded the knife, escape and runs towards another store. Officer may use deadly force due to their use of force policy.
I think if the Senator is going to generalize the question to Hagel, then maybe he should also take the time to fully explain what he means by use of drones to kill Americans. The reality is, if one was to examine current law, if a drone was in use now as an officer, it would (or rather the operator would) be held to the same department policy on the Use of Force. If the drone sees a robbery by a suspect with a gun, running to another store, how is that any different than the example I gave above? I'm not advocating drone use, but rather showing how the legal aspects of it are parallel to what officers do now.