Attorney General Eric Holder this week held out the possibility that the President could kill an American citizens with a drone attack on U.S. soil without any criminal charge or trial. After Holder announced President Obama’s kill list policy, many apologists for the Administration insisted that the policy was limited to targets outside of the United States and was subject to a form of due process of the President’s own making. At the time, I wrote that these arguments were nothing but spin by the Administration and its supporters since the underlying claim of authority would have no such limitations. Holder now appears to have confirmed that even they do not believe in such limitations. This follows the release of a memo showing that Holder’s description of the policy at Northwestern University Law School was narrower than the actual policy described within the Administration.
Holder was responding to a letter from Sen. Rand Paul concerning the nomination of CIA director John Brennan on the use of lethal force. Holder said “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
It will be difficult for people to find someway, as in the past, to blame this policy on Republicans. The kill list policy of Obama belongs to him. As I discussed in earlier columns (here and here and here), it is astonishing how citizens, including so many liberals and civil libertarians, have remained relatively silent in the face of a classic claim of authoritarian power. The relative silence over this latest development shows just how passive the country, and particularly liberals, have become in challenging Obama on his aggregation of executive power. It also is the latest evidence showing Obama’s evisceration of the civil liberties movement in this country. There is little observable movement left after it was divided over loyalty to Obama in the first term. A president has previously said that he can kill U.S. citizens on his own authority. It was then revealed that the citizen does not actually have to be involved in an imminent terrorism attack. Now he claims the right to use that authority in the U.S. The response at every stage has been a collective and prolonged yawn from a people growing comfortable with a burgeoning security state and an imperial president.
Source: CNN
I note that Erin Burnet, America’s cutest news reporter, actually did a reasonable job of covering the Paul filibuster
She made it clear that Paul was demanding an answer to questions regarding drones and assassination. She then presented pro and con views from opposing spokes people.
In contrast msnbc with the pathetic administration toady Chris Mathews mentioned the filibuster and then did every thing possible to obscure the serious questions raised by Paul. He made it seem that Paul only wanted to obstruct the Brennan nomination. Mathews made no mention of the questions that Paul wanted the administration to answer.
Mathews played an extended clip of Paul discussing Hitler’s election in a German democracy. Paul made the point that he was not accusing anyone of being a Hitler or NAZI in this administration. Then Mathews with pseudo incisiveness asked ‘then why did he (ie Paul) bring it up.
Clearly Paul was making the point that the American public needs to be vigilant and prevent the executive from assuming rights that belong to the people or powers that belong to other branches of government.
You don’t have to agree with Paul to think he was asking some important questions.
And you don’t have to be a political scientist to know that the administration toady Chris Mathews was doing a hatchet job before our eyes.
Shame of Chris Mathews and msnbc.
It is now clear that Republicans are not the only ones who place party loyalty above the good of the country. This is serious business and Democrats are failing in their obligation to ask serious questions.
“This filibuster has been 33% important questions, 10% eating chocolate, 17% batshit crazy, 24% wild speculation, 16% Danger Room articles.” Jeremy Scahill
Blouise, Ted Cruz has reminded that this is largely a tea party filibuster…. ..
I agree with what everyone here has posted and even the one sole detractor has it right…..LK…. Excellent recall about Nixon…… Mespo, even a stopped clock is right twice during a 24 hour period…. Gene, the Weimar Republic still shakes in its boots in what it became…. Raff, OS, Dredd, Blouise, Bron and everyone else…. Excellent…. I see Elaine has not commented…. Maybe… Too busy trying to keep up with the education thread…. That will keep 100s busy…..
You’re welcome, OS.
Where are the Dems in this? It’s shameful.
ap,
Thanks for the link. I have forwarded it to several people.
It is interesting to me that this filibuster speech has brought so many people of wildly different views into agreement. On most social and economic issues, I am opposed to almost everything the man stands for. However, the question of getting the Administration to address basic Constitutional rights, and the violation thereof by the government, in a straightforward and unambiguous manner is spot on. Mr. President, just answer the damn question.
It was a stroke of rhetorical and political ingenuity for RP to point out that the 2nd Amendment is in danger if the 4th continues to be shredded. That attracted the attention of every gun owner in the country, whether NRA member or not. Those are a lot of votes, and those votes cover every corner of the political spectrum.
Somebody on one of the news programs a few days ago said this Administration is the least transparent in memory. Opacity is enforced, using the DoJ as muscle. The DoJ pursues whistleblowers and leakers aggressively, and to hell with whistleblower protection laws. If we hear of a news tidbit “leaked” by this White House, you can take to the bank that it’s a trial balloon done deliberately, not some aide talking out of school.
I don’t understand why there are people that believe the president would never go after American citizens on American soil with drones. What makes you think he wouldn’t? Because he says so?
WHY do you think all this is being put in place? Just in case years from now it seems to be a good idea? Just LOOK at all the things that have been put in place in the last few years. It’s unbelievable to me that it has escalated so fast.
All of these things have been put in place for a reason; otherwise nobody would have done them. Plain and simple. Get ready.
Also, I can’t believe the way people talk about Ron Paul. This man is the ONLY one who actually CARES about we the people. Can’t you see that?
The Democrats and Republicans have only shown me that they care about agendas. RP is the ONLY one I have seen that I think gives on FIG about us as actual people. Do you think that anyone who voted in the NDAA gives a fig about the American populace? Do you think anyone that has voted to strip us of our rights cares about the American people? Do you think anyone who says, yeah, it’s okay to sic drones on people and kill them without trial (or other collateral thems, who cares) actually CARES about people whatsoever? DUH!!!! Res ipsa loquitor
There is no longer a slippery slope. We’re just about at the bottom now!
Ezra Van –
Good point, and though it’s rare, I’m impressed that at least some of the customers here seem to have become hip to the fact that George Wallace was correct.. about the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
mespo,
Exactly.
The unofficial filibuster transcripts:
http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=727
Every week on this blog there are articles about police trampling human rights and detaining, shooting, arresting, killing innocent people with little or no probable cause. How is this any different?
” How is this any different?”
In the case of the police, many acknowledge the LE action is illegal or questionable, or excusable only because LE had to act with little or no time for thoughtful analysis.
Here the administration seems to claim that the president has a legal right to even without due process and even when there is no immediate need to act. The administration’s concept of ‘immediate need to act’ seems bizarre to many and only distantly related to the concept of immediate.
Pretty big difference it seems to me.
Sen. Paul has said he doesn’t actually believe the Administration will use a drone to strike Americans on U.S. soil as he postulated. His point seems to be that it shouldn’t be so hard for the Administration to acknowledge it is both illegal and unconstitutional. In that we all can agree. I’m no Paul fan but he is doing a service tonight.
“You can be totally disgusted with many aspects of Rand Paul’s views & still think he is doing the right thing here.” Jeremy Scahill tweet
Is Ron Wyden the only Dem with the cojones to stand beside Paul on this correct stance. -David Blauw
Apparently and it’s disgusting. It should come back to haunt those who don’t…
Where are the Democrats?? This filibuster will end. It will be dust covered soon enough. Is Ron Wyden the only Dem with the cojones to stand beside Paul on this correct stance.
Congress is full of overwetted, overcooked, overmoist, macaroni spined sycophants, .
Sam was indeed very well educated. He also thoroughly understood thuggery and was a master manipulator. Not only did he play a heavy hand in setting up the scene that led to the Boston Massacre, he encouraged his cousin, John, to take on the defense of the British soldiers charged. Revere and his “Mechanics” were also a group Sam used to great advantage.
I am one of his biggest fans and have been studying the man’s life for decades.
The reason Democrats are not joining him is because the entire party has become filled with hypocrites and cowards. Keep in mind that I am a Democrat. I am ashamed of what my party has become.
VERY nice selection Dredd, very nice.
_______________________________
If Rand Paul is in fact saying he will stop filibustering when the President rules out the possibility of killing with drones on American soil, why aren’t more Democrats joining him? Where are all of the ‘honorable’ gentlemen and gentlewomen that should be standing with him? He’s got what, 6 Republicans and a single Democrat (Wyden)? There are only 7 of our Senators that would seize this opportunity and that is a pitiful number indeed. I would stand with Satan if it was an honorable question and a righteous fight.
****
““I think Senator Paul and I agree that this nomination also provides a very important opportunity for the United States Senate to consider the government’s rules and policies on the targeted killings of Americans and that, of course, has been a central pillar of our nation’s counterterror strategy,” Mr. Wyden said.
He added that he felt that “the executive branch should not be allowed to conduct such a serious and far-reaching program by themselves without any scrutiny, because that’s not how American democracy works.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination/
****
Gene,
I agree wholeheartedly on the Nixon issue. Not impeaching him was one of the beginnings of th imperial presidency.