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
Democrats Absent During Rand Paul Filibuster Of John Brennan Nomination
By Ryan Grim & Mollie Reilly
Posted: 03/07/2013 12:30 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/democrats-rand-paul-filibuster_n_2825847.html
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans took the floor on Wednesday, launching an historic filibuster in an attempt to extract an answer from the White House to a simple question: Does the administration believe it has the legal authority to kill an American citizen on American soil with a drone strike?
It’s a question that seems fairly nonpartisan on its face, but a second one occurred to those watching the C-SPAN broadcast late into the morning: Where are all the Democrats?
Republicans, from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to filibuster-leader Rand Paul (Ky.), spoke for more than 12 hours. But only one Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, spoke in support of Paul during that time. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) tweeted support, but otherwise progressives who might have assumed to have been supportive were absent, leaving members of the GOP as the sole defenders of civil liberties. The White House was equally silent.
Turley really needs to run for office.
Here is something I find to be odd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333
Executive Order 12333 of the Reagan administration that extended similar orders from the previous two administratins. It reads in part:
“No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination”
Previously, the Ford administration banned political assasinations. There was some lessening of the order dealing with those engaged in terrorism.
So in essence, a head of state of another country is immune from political assasination but our own citizens on American soil are not.
What’s up with that?
John, apples and oranges. The only reasonable and appropriate rationale for drone use is that we can not get to a bad guy. There is no place domestically that the government can’t get to if they make a concerted effort. It was too late for the towers but if the President hadn’t been paralyzed with fear he would have shot down flight 93, I’m not persuaded that that isn’t exactly what happened.
—————
David re: crazies on parade. I’m not watching it so if that’s the case that’s a shame, as a mater for inquiry and condemnation the subject deserves better.
Wonder if it will make a difference that so many people from differing points of view see the filibuster as a positive thing?
Never thought I would agree with Rand Paul, but his filibuster was the right thing to do. I just wish it would get some good results. It ended at 12:39 am.
Gene,
Great clip from an hilarious movie!
As several commenters have noted, the Executive branch has usurped power for the last several decades.
Congress declares war, and should never have been allowed to abdicate its responsibilities. Pure cowardice. But we kept electing them, didn’t we?
You are wasting your time pointing fingers at who the Executive is now, or speculating whether some other person would not continue to usurp power.
The Executive will usurp power if invited to by Congress.
You’re also wasting your energy with fantasies about overthrowing an elected government, using violence. You can’t do it physically, and treason is forbidden by the Constitution. Don’t make sly little references to changing things through violence. I’m not impressed. If shots are fired, you’ll just soil yourself. Talk about things you’re actually willing to do. Like vote.
The Constitution stipulates that peaceful, orderly transitions, only, are allowed. If you don’t like the democratically-elected politicians, there are remedies, called voting, for that. Until another election, you need to put pressure on existing officials, to change their behavior. There’s simply no other way. Do it.
Senator Rand Paul, lunatic that he is, is performing a service today, in bringing extra-legal assassinations to the public consciousness.
MSNBC isn’t talking about this? Watch Rachel Maddow talk about it. Her guest is Ron Wyden.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#51075704
Liberals objecting to Obama’s abuse of Executive power.
Harry Reid where are you? I am disgusted with the Dem leadership. ..
Or the absolute lack of leadership.
All of Congress gets led around by their lobbyists and donors. If Harry gave a hoot about the constitution and the liberties of the American people He would be demanding a full exposure and explanation of Holders statement.
This filibuster now (at 1215 EST) is turning into a Republican fashion show.
Yes the crazies are forming a parade. …. Sadly I envision Harry standing on a balcony throwing beads to these Repubs as they show off their philosophy.
Q: Is the base argument the Admin makes one which the logic is rooted in the concept that the president can’t get a Court order on a short order request or is it that he simply won’t and can’t be bothered by the Courts?
Mr. Holder?
Just to lighten to mood and stress the importance and seriousness of this overreach of unitary executive power . . .
Obama,
Has the power to do what hitler did…. If you think different…. Read some history…..
John,
And when the SS shot and killed you because they though you were consorting with the Emmy combadnts….. Does it really make any difference that that was Germany…. In the 20, 30 and 40s….. And this is today….. Sme reason, same basic everything…. Thy still had local police in Germany….. Right up and until the time thy needed them to fight on the fronts….
The president doesn’t have the power to kill someone if necessary to save a life, but the lowest folks-police officers–on the bureaucratic pole do? What about a terrorist situation? What would the president have done on 9/11 when they scrambled jet fighters (albeit late) to try and intercept the planes flying into the WTC?
Nope, Mr. Turley, I think you are partly wrong here. It’s like saying that we don’t have a right to self defense in our home. Well, given the presidents duty to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic, I would think he has the power for which we all do in matters of grave danger.
“Going to need to adjust my percentages. Ted Cruz is dramatically increasing the batshit crazy % in the #filibuster”. Jeremy Scahill.
007bama, with a “licence to kill.” Could that extend to political enemies, on the basis of fabricated evidence. Oh no, our government would NEVER do anything like make up evidence that didn’t exist, like WMDs…
“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.” -Ron Wyden, D-Texas
If other Democrats had been smart, they would have joined Wyden. I’ll say it again: This will come back to haunt Democrats.
Rand Paul Does Not Go Quietly Into the Night
By ASHLEY PARKER
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-does-not-go-quietly-into-the-night/?hp
Ostensibly, Mr. Paul is objecting to the Mr. Brennan’s nomination. But in fact, Mr. Paul’s main concerns are those of civil liberties and Constitutional rights he says are under attack by the administration’s potential use of unmanned drone strikes on American citizens on United States soil. (Mr. Brennan, who as the White House counterterrorism adviser was the chief architect of the largely clandestine drone program, served as a good proxy.)
…
Apparently it did. Mr. Paul soldiered ahead, before again receiving some help, from an unlikely source — Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon.
Mr. Wyden said that while he had voted in favor of Mr. Brennan’s nomination on Tuesday at a Senate Intelligence Committee meeting and planned to vote for him again on the Senate floor, he believed that Mr. Paul “has made a number of important points” about the administration’s lethal drone program.
“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, “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.”
…
Mr. Paul again said his true goal was simply to get a response from the administration saying it would not use drone strikes to take out American citizens on United States soil — and, perhaps with Twitter still in the forefront of his mind, offered Mr. Holder a variety of ways to respond.
“We’ll take a telegram,” Mr. Paul said. “We’ll take a Tweet.”
DRUDGE reports that we are in hour 11 of the Filibuster
And where do you think the President and many of our senators were while the Filibuster was going on?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-house-silent-paul-filibuster_706557.html
Where I was going with that last comment about RP conflating the 2nd and 4th Amendments. The Administration and many members of Congress are pushing for registration and/or background checks of all firearms transactions, whether private sales or by licensed dealers. The point is, that registration requirement will never pass as long as gun owners know the 4th Amendment is being disregarded and disrespected by both local law enforcement and the Feds.
I see that Senator Schumer’s GOP buddy bailed on him today. You get only one guess as to why.
I know the ACLU focuses on the First Amendment, but it appears they need to shift their sights over a couple of notches to the 4th.
Anybody here familiar with the Overton Window? We are seeing it in action. Joe Overton postulated that a political idea may be unthinkable when it is first proposed. As time goes by, political, economic and propaganda pressures slowly shift the idea along a scale, until they reach a point where it is acceptable. Thereby, it is possible to morph the formerly unthinkable into policy. The points on the scale are:
– Unthinkable
– Radical
– Acceptable
– Sensible
– Popular
– Policy
Gene, are you paying attention? This is right down your alley.
Blouise, Glad they did it.