Sen. Rand Paul has ended his day-long filibuster against President Obama’s claim to be able to kill any U.S. citizen on his own authority without criminal charge or conviction. What was most striking about this principled stand is the virtual total absence of Democrats in speaking out against Obama. Just this week, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that this policy could include killing citizens on U.S. soil with drones. Yet, the Democrats worked to stop not the kill list policy but Paul’s filibuster. Obama apologists have attacked Rand for some of his other positions to avoid dealing with the fact that Obama is claiming the powers of an Imperial President. I do not agree with Paul on many things, but I commend him for this stand and condemn those who remained silent, again, in the face of this authoritarian policy of Obama.
The filibuster was to block the nomination of John Brennan who has been opposed by most civil libertarians due to his connection to the torture program and other abuses. His more senior colleagues, like John McCain, told him to “calm down” — telling advice from our political leaders that authoritarian power is nothing to get upset about if it does not affect you. Lindsey Graham stated that against up against the unilateral killing of citizens “ridiculous” and just not how things are done in Washington.
Rand fell short of the record of former Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
He shared some time with other Republican senators. However, after five hours, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to limit the remaining time.
The lack of opposition to Obama’s kill list policy is a national disgrace. It shows the triumph of a cult of personality within the Democratic ranks where both members and voters have chosen Obama over long-standing values of civil liberties that once defined their party.
Source: CNN
Max-1,
As long as the President continues to engage in expanding the unitary Executive? I would have to agree with them.
Gene H.
WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Jay Carney on Thursday tried to put to rest a simmering debate over President Barack Obama’s drone policy, stating in clear terms that the president doesn’t have the legal authority to, hypothetically, order drone strikes on Americans on U.S. soil.
During his daily briefing, Carney read aloud a short letter that went out Thursday afternoon from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who waged a 13-hour filibuster on Wednesday over Obama’s secret use of drones to carry out targeted killings. Throughout the effort, Paul, along with a dozen other Republican senators, demanded to know whether Obama believed he had the right to order drone strikes on U.S. citizens on U.S soil.
Carney said the answer is no.
“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?,'” Carney read aloud. “The answer to that question is no.”
Gene H.
Many people say the president poses an imminent threat to our Liberty…
I’m with Arthur.
BarkinDog,
Re. Civil War.
Wasn’t that about States organizing against other States in an armed conflict over State’s Rights and control of the Government? How is that anything resembling a Federalized Government usurping Due Process Rights to done one enemy combatant on US soil?
Has anyone noticed that much of this hinges upon redefining the word “imminent” into a nonsense definition of the word? From a synonym for “impending” into something that requires no evidence, just a supposition of ill-will in a party?
I don’t like Rand Paul and I certainly don’t like his father. That said his filibuster was courageous and correct. Give his beliefs, I strongly doubt that he will do much good in his future career, but for us and for him, this is a shining moment of courage that I applaud.
Eric Holder to Rand Paul:
“Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil?” the letter reads. “The answer to that is no.”
Here’s the letter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/files/2013/03/Senator-Rand-Paul-Letter.pdf
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/07/white-house-obama-would-not-use-drones-against-u-s-citizens-on-american-soil/)
“The lack of opposition to Obama’s kill list policy is a national disgrace.”
Yes indeed, well said. I sure wish all our high school teachers would read this allowed in their class instead of looking for paper cutouts of guns.
Swarthmore mom,
I have a problem with this one. Shouldn’t justifying a why basis be rooted in relevancy?
Said Carney: “In an event like an attack like Pearl Harbor or an attack like 9/11, obviously the president has the constitutional authority to take action to prevent those kinds of attacks.”
I mean, how many Americans plotted Pearl Harbor? Were Japanese planes launched from US soil? How many Americans were actual hijackers on 9/11? The passengers, were they hostages or terrorists?
Important questions to sort out discovering relevancy, I’d say.
Why didn’t Holder point to McVeigh? Too many other questions need to be answered w/ that one, like FBI and fertilizer swaps missed, and such, I guess… ?
Either the Justice system is broken and the President can’t get access to a Court on a short notice or the president is broken and simply will not seek a Court.
The former has a fix…
… The latter requires Impeachment.
Arthur Randolph Erb made the Lincoln reference in one of the first comments above. Here is another scenario. Suppose that the government learns that a citizen is intending to kill the President and the entire cabinet. Citizen X has a gun and possibly a bomb in his car. X is on the cell phone talking to his tribe of terrorists (all of them citizens as well) and is overheard by the feds as he is driving up to the podium where the President and the Cabinet are all seated. A fed swoops up on a motorcycle and shoots Citizen X in the head as he is driving.
Suppose someone shot John Wilkes Booth in the head as he was going up the steps in Fords Theatre just before he killed Lincoln.
Suppose al qaeda has an Iranian born but now US Citizen who is about to launch an attack on a grade school in Newtown and there is no way to stop him othe than to blast him.
Suppose the al qaeda U.S. Citizens group is on a boat with torpedos and they are in New York harbor headed for the Titanic. Can we blast them?
Who is entitled to due process and a trial when they are a threat. How imminent does the threat have to be?
Lincoln was dealing with treason. But not after the fact treason actors who were locked up.
In War if we find combatants on the field out of uniform we get to shoot them without trial.
The rules of engagement change over time. I do not thnk that the TSA has the right or ability legally to shoot an American passport holder who is foreign born Saudi, simply because he boarded a plane or tried to, with a box cutter. But can we shoot the guy if he is behind the wheel of his own plane and we think he is about to crash into the Twin Towers?
There is a lot going on here and Rand Paul is making people think. It is a good blog topic today.
Holder should have left after the first term.
Holder to Paul: No drone strikes on non-combatants
David Jackson, USA TODAY2:07p.m. EST March 7, 2013
Attorney General Eric Holder has written Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., about drone policy, saying strikes will not be made against American citizens on U.S. soil who are non-combatants.
rand-paul
(Photo: Charles Dharapak, AP)
Story Highlights
Attorney General Eric Holder sends a letter to Sen. Rand Paul
The letter says President Obama does not have the authority to use drones against citizens on U.S. soil
Attorney General Eric Holder says President Obama does not have the authority to use an armed drone against a non-combatant American on U.S. soil,
Holder cited that conclusion in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who engaged in a 13-hour filibuster to challenge Obama’s drone program.
Paul had sought to hold up the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director; Brennan, a White House counter-terrorism adviser, has been involved in directing the drone program.
“No president has the right to say he is judge, jury and executioner,” Paul said.
In his letter to Paul, Holder wrote:
“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no.”
Both Holder and Carney have said that, as commander-in-chief, Obama reserves the right to do what is necessary to protect the country.
Said Carney: “In an event like an attack like Pearl Harbor or an attack like 9/11, obviously the president has the constitutional authority to take action to prevent those kinds of attacks.”
The Privacy Act requires that all agencies publish descriptions of all computer systems in the Federal Register and that in that description the purpose of the system is listed. So that should apply to the computer systems that control drones. See 5 USC 552a
Tony, please feel free to list ONE part of the Constitution that gives the President the right to murder US citizens. I want just ONE. Hint: you won’t be able to find one. But I am curious to see what part you ATTEMPT to use as your justification.
“Wyden, Udall, Collins Statement on Committee Access to Targeted Killing Documents”
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-collins-statement-on-committee-access-to-targeted-killing-documents
There are tube and bag rumors floating around the Senate today– that he had a tube in place that fed into a long bag straped to his leg. The last time I had to stand that long I was waiting to vote.
Tony Smith said:
“Oh, please Turley, are you truly saying that there is no imaginable situation where this would be legal? Even if a war was happening on US soil and the US citizen was part of the opposition forces and could not be captured and was threatening US civilians? Give me a break. Paul isn’t principled or correct on the law.”
The answer is, NO, there is NO imaginable situation where this would be legal. In the United States, we dont have ONE man acting as judge, jury and executioner. This is the very reason we have the bill of rights and we separated from tyrant King George, AND why we have 3 brances of government—so ONE MAN doesnt make all the calls. If a war broke out (which has never happened, with the exception of the Civil war…which Lincoln started by invading the South and committing treason according to the Constitution) the military would deal with it and we would capture them and try them in court. Period.
Many of us grew up during the Cold War and were taught that our enemies at the time were “evil doers” and that we were the “good guys” because we had the Rule of Law, an Independent Judiciary, checks & balances between branches and a population that was predominantly Judeo-Christian. Today the United Nations, Amnesty International, International Red Cross (a Christian organization) have condemned the actions of the United States and for the first time ever in American history torture has been codified into federal law. And it gets worse – today a child only knows his great nation as torturers, assasins without charge, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, etc. – so if our generation does not fix this during the Obama Administration will our kids have the knowledge to fix it even if they wanted to? If Obama doesn’t fix it how can the Democrats say anything when the next GOP president does it?
Barkindog, It DEPENDS, on what you mean about holding his pee. Bob Dole did Viagra ads, Rand Paul Depends ads?