Posted on 03/10/2013 7:10:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Last week, Rand Paul, the junior U.S. Senator from Kentucky, managed to squeeze an answer out of the nation’s highest ups. In constipated Washington, it sure wasn’t easy.
Only via a 13-hour filibuster could Senator Paul capture the attention of the nation’s press corps, and thus, the American people . . . and in so doing, even reach the Obama Administration.
Rising to the floor of what once was billed, straight-faced, as the world’s greatest deliberative body, Sen. Paul stated, “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
The senator had previously sent letters to the president, the attorney general and to John Brennan, the president’s CIA director nominee, asking clear questions about the nation’s well known, but secretly conducted, drone assassination program. Most importantly, Sen. Paul inquired whether the Obama Administration believed it had the constitutional authority to murder a non-combatant U.S. citizen sitting at a sidewalk café in an American city (and those in his or her vicinity) with a Hellfire missile shot from a military drone aircraft.
The answers from the Obama Administration? Less than reassuring. As Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart explained it, Attorney General Eric Holder “kind of, sort of implied that, hypothetically, in the right circumstance — yeesss! We can do that. We can do that. Probably won’t, but yeah.”
The senator was not quite as concise as the comedian. “When I asked the President, can you kill an American on American soil,” Paul elaborated during the early hours of his oratorical barricade against the Brennan nomination, “it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, ‘no.’ The President’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The President says, ‘I haven’t killed anyone yet.’ He goes on to say, ‘and I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might.’”
The very next day, Rand Paul’s filibuster paid off. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent Sen. Paul and the media a letter admitting, “The answer to that question is no.”
The president of the United States does not have the constitutional authority to order a citizen’s assassination on U.S. soil. Good to hear.
But the answer raises additional questions. What if a U.S. citizen travels to London and sits down at a café there? What if the café is in Yemen or Egypt or Mali or Bahrain?
Do we forfeit legal due process from our own government and its adherence to the Bill of Rights when we take an overseas vacation?
“Overseas, one of the most famous citizens they killed, Anwar al-Awlaki, he worked with our enemies; I think he could have been tried for treason. I think if I were on the jury, from what I read, I would have voted for his death,” Dr. Paul explained. “The thing is, some kind of process might be helpful. His son, though, 16 years old, was killed two weeks later in a separate drone strike and he was on nobody’s list that I know of. [The Obama Administration] won’t respond. But I think the response by the President’s spokesman is reprehensible and really should be called out. It is sort of this flippant response that I think shows absolutely no regard for individual rights or for Americans. He said, well, ‘the kid should have chosen a more responsible father’. . . . If you happen to be the son of a bad person, is that enough to kill you?”
No one, certainly not Senator Paul, suggests that those actively engaged in combat — American or otherwise — have any right to due process. But drone strikes are killing folks far away from any battlefield. And those killed include by-standing civilians guilty of no offense.
Do we really think we can inspire freedom throughout the world through a secret program of assassination that has no check or balance from another branch of government or, for that matter, even within the executive branch?
Rand Paul stood up for the Constitution last week and reminded us of a basic underpinning of our system, namely, “you can’t give that much power to one person.”
Many nations sport constitutions bellowing about the rights of the people and the duties of government in protecting those rights. Rarely if ever are the people able to hold their government to the terms of the contract. Constitutions are mere words on paper, while governments marshal big guns and tanks to maintain their territorial monopoly on the use of force. (With the Second Amendment, at least that monopoly is popularly checked.)
Americans are fortunate: Our national charter was well-crafted, with the exception of slavery (at the time) and the amendment process of Article V (to this day). The anti-federalists, in opposing the Constitution, greatly strengthened it by insisting on the Bill of Rights. And the 14th Amendment, by applying those same rights to state citizenship and same prohibitions to state governments, completes the package.
But, if we Americans wield the greatest individual rights of any people in the history of humankind, it is because of individuals of courage and conviction who have taken principled action. It has often been someone like Rosa Parks; last week it was a U.S. Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul.
Mrs. Parks knew when and where to sit; Sen. Paul knew when and where to stand.
Those of us who Stand With Rand will prove our mettle by asking the follow-up questions. [further reading]
Actually, liberals say the enemy should get treated like common criminal all the time.
If it were up to me John Walker Lindh would have died in the Afghan hell hole of his own choosing as should any “former” American fighting for the enemy.
However, America is a land of enemies in the eyes of the democrats and only a fool would allow them to kill at will.
And now we are down the rabbit hole. The libs define “enemy” as us. They define “combat” as doing anything that opposes them.
Paranoid? Not at all. The libs have a long history of redefining anything to mean what they want it to mean in order to get whatever it is they want at that time.
“Is” - Clinton
“Marriage” - Gay rights advocates
“Enemy” - 0bama/Holder
“Combat” - 0bama/Holder
“Choice” - abortion right activists
“community organizer” - rabble rousers and their followers
I’m sure you can think of other words to add to the list.
Good points. You should now beware of tiny objects circling overhead...
I have a Hutaree “militia” member living nearby. I could be collateral damage.
At which point the administration could find that we’ve said “Hi” to each other and even been in the same room and I could be posthumously convicted for plotting against the government.
You’re a FReeper. Your neighbor will be the collateral damage.
They’ll have to carpet bomb the whole town with all the enemies of the left that are here.
Wow...just posted something very similar in line of thought on the other thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2995352/posts?page=37#37
But we are. nobama is taking more and more power and NOBODY, least of all the lazy ass slimy RINOS in the House, is even lifting a finger in protest. Disgusting!!
Obama has become the classic unsupervised bully with a new BB gun. Unfortunately his BB gun fires hellfire missiles.
Which we have done during bombing raids, from Germany and Japan in World War II to Iraq and Afghanistan in the recent conflict. Would Paul Jacobs condemn the U.S. for that as well?
Have we declared war on Yemen?
Only an idiot could compare Germany and Japan to the random killings the Obama misadministration is conducting.
Killing a terrorist and his associates is one thing. Killing a terrorist and everyone who happens to be nearby is a whole different ball game. Obama is doing little more than aiding the most radical to power.
In November of 1986 I had an assistant DA in Corpus Christi, TX threaten my life.
She made it clear she could have the police kill me any time she wanted and she would see to it that it was done legally.
Did they ever try?
Yes they did.
Would have done it too except the idiots tried to make it look like an accident.
Cop totaled a brand new police cruiser in the process.
Anyone that would even contemplate giving the govt this authority is past insane.
In the eyes of many dems, if the govt can get this authority while a dem is in power, the dems will never be out of power.
Suddenly all opposition to the dems will be involved in “accidents”.
House blows up because of gas leak. A wire in the cars fuel tank ignited the tank. Blew themselves up while making a bomb.
I’ve got a Hutaree “militia” member living less than a half mile away. Killing him in a drone strike would have been a whole let less embarrassing for the administration than all those acquittals that resulted from the high profile raid.
After all, they were supposedly plotting against government. (it was actually an informant inspired bull session that was tame compared to some of what we see openly posted here at FR)
I’ve been picking up on little bits and pieces in the news that make me believe another high profile “Waco/military” style raid is being planned by fed agents against some group somewhere.
One thing I’ve noticed was the ACLU raising questions about the use of military weapons by law enforcement.
It may be nothing but I don’t trust the ACLU as far as I can throw them.
It’s struck me as being what the left calls “heightened public awareness”.
Make the public aware of the issue before the event takes place in order to maximize the outrage.
It always amazes me, when people like McCain state that the thought that the U.S. might target it’s own citizens, is “ridiculous”. That shows a complete disregard for the history of mankind. History is replete with examples of governments turning on their own citizens. No need to mention them here.
It CAN happen here. Hence, the second amendment.
Don’t you think it hypocritical that the liberal’s were apocalyptic when the soldiers put underwear on the prisoners heads at Abu Ghraib and exclaimed for months that was causing terrorist attacks, but killing people from 30,000 feet or whatever feet they fly, is fine? and didn’t they bitch right up to their messiah being elected about Guantanamo, and how that was causing terrorist attacks, then they bring OBL son in law to NY city to try him in a US court by a jury of his “peers?” I am sure his case will be thrown out as for sure when he was captured he was not read his Miranda rights.
Where are the people with a working brain, asking these questions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.