Bill Watch! It's A Drone Legislation Party!

Multiple legislative acts were introduced this week concerning the use of drones both by the government and by private citizens. You can review those here. I'm going to focus on the two that are the most interesting and impactful, which come from Rep. Daryl Issa and Rand Paul respectively.Issa's bill takes on the President and the use of an executive order to authorize an attack on a U.S. citizen, or citizen of a U.S. ally via drone attack (with specific language about drone attacks in the country). I personally am a huge fan of any legislation that reigns in presidential power, which has become bloated, dictatorial and regularly skirts the checks and balances that we were promised. If you'll recall I noted another bill designed to curb the president's powers in the last Bill Watch!, dubbed the REINS Act. H.R. 2438: Designating Requirements On Notification of Executive-ordered Strikes Act of 2013

Summary: To require an adequate process in preplanned lethal operations that deliberately target citizens of the United States or citizens of strategic treaty allies of the United States, to limit the use of cluster munitions generally, including when likely to unintentionally harm such citizens, and for other purposes.

(a) Limitation- A Federal department or agency or the Armed Forces may not deliberately target a citizen of the United States or a citizen of a strategic treaty ally of the United States in a preplanned lethal operation unless the preplanned lethal operation is planned and executed pursuant to a written determination signed personally by the President--(1) confirming the status of the targeted citizen as an enemy combatant; and(2) authorizing the deliberate lethal targeting of the citizen based on an articulated need for the use of such lethal force.(b) Congressional Notification- Not later than 30 days after making a determination under subsection (a), the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report, in classified form if necessary--(1) certifying that the timing and details of the preplanned lethal operation were approved personally by the President; and(2) describing in detail--(A) the information used to determine that the targeted citizen is an enemy combatant; and(B) the reasons why the use of lethal force was necessary.(c) Delegation- The President may not delegate--(1) the final determination of enemy combatant status; and(2) the final approval of timing and details of the execution of the preplanned lethal operation.SEC. 104. PROHIBITION ON PREPLANNED LETHAL OPERATIONS INSIDE THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize any Federal department or agency or the Armed Forces to deliberately target a citizen of the United States or a citizen of a strategic treaty ally in a preplanned lethal operation inside the territory of the United States or any location under the jurisdiction of the United States.

To my interpretation, this bill is forcing the President to go through Congress with any intent to utilize drone attacks on a U.S. citizen abroad. It also prohibits the use of drones domestically to assassinate Americans (something Attn. Gen. Holder wouldn't commit on previously). That part is good. The part that's bad? These assassinations abroad will still take place without a trial, as once someone is declared a terrorist/enemy combatant, they lose that right in our current system. So citizens can still be murdered sans habeas corpus. There is just another layer of approval and another set of eyes that will determine whether the action is warranted and will move forward or not.Another aspect of the bill, which I also approve of, is a limitation on the use of cluster bombs for these types of strikes to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage.The second bill, from Rand Paul, sets its sights on the domestic use of drones for spying / information gathering by federal or local government.S. 1016 The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act

Summary: A bill to protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for other purposes.SEC. 3. PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.Except as provided in section 4, a person or entity acting under the authority, or funded in whole or in part by, the Government of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant that satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.SEC. 4. EXCEPTIONS.This Act does not prohibit any of the following:(1) PATROL OF BORDERS- The use of a drone to patrol national borders to prevent or deter illegal entry of any persons or illegal substances.(2) EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES- The use of a drone by a law enforcement party when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, exigent circumstances exist when the law enforcement party possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to the life of an individual is necessary.(3) HIGH RISK- The use of a drone to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization, when the Secretary of Homeland Security determines credible intelligence indicates there is such a risk.

So, like many of Rand's bills, on the surface this sounds like a solid, liberty-protecting bill. But upon reading, there are cracks and allowances that the neocons will applaud, as they virtually de-claw the bill. If law enforcement can determine and define "exigent circumstances," why would they not do so to rationalize almost any drone use? This language is all-too similar to the wording in a Dept. of Justice document that essentially permits legal drone attacks on U.S. citizens. That text:

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Looks like Rand has been taking notes.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!