Posted on 03/12/2013 1:24:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
Here's Kevin explaining why Eric Holder's curt reply to Rand Paul's question on domestic drones is "slippery," at best:
Sen. Paul's communications team declared victory after Eric Holder sent a letter to Paul today saying that no, President Obama does not claim "the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." ... While it sounds nice that if an American isn't "engaged in combat," she'll be safe, that still leaves the Obama Administration a lot of wiggle room. And precious little oversight.
That was last Thursday. Fast forward to today:
“Sen. Paul’s 13 hours on the Senate floor won’t have any practical effect on our policy and how we’re going after terrorists on a day-to-day basis,” a senior administration official told Yahoo News on condition of anonymity. But didn’t Paul wring a letter out of Obama's top lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder, in which he effectively promised that Americans who aren’t lining up to take a shot at the Capitol with a grenade launcher (to paraphrase the senator) are safe? In a word: No. During his 13 hours on the Senate floor, Paul repeatedly asked whether Obama believed he had the authority to kill an American, on U.S. soil, who was not “actively attacking” America. The question prompted Holder to respond. “Dear Senator Paul,” Holder said in a 43-word letter. “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.” Holder didn't use the phrase “actively attacking.” And administration officials privately agreed on Friday that “not engaged in combat” was the key phrase going forward. None of them agreed to define the expression on the record.
Which returns us to Sen. Paul's core question. The administration failed to explicitly define relevant terms like "combatant" and "imminent" in its recently-leaked drone memos, and has conspicuously declined to do so throughout all subsequent discussions of the controversy. Let's call it strategic ambiguity. Last week, the junior Senator from Kentucky hoped to box the White House into conceding at least one very narrow circumstance under which the president lacks the Constitutional authority to order a drone strike on an American citizen on US soil: If the potential target were not in the process of carrying out an active attack. In other words, even if this hypothetical citizen were in fact a nefarious character intent on taking part in a destructive act at some point, the government couldn't just take him out while eating at a cafe or sleeping in bed. Paul wanted confirmation that this "(currently) passive citizen/terrorist" scenario would require an arrest, and would bar a summary execution. Holder's letter appeared to satisfy that concern, but the administration is now admitting that the devil resides in the definitions -- and that they're not too interested in doing much more defining, thank you. This is why derisive chuckling about "paranoia" from the Left and irrelevant fact-checks from the Right miss the point. Rand Paul wasn't making dark intimations about the Obama White House's active plans or intentions. Paul went out of his way to aver exactly the opposite during last week's filibuster. He was merely seeking a straight answer about one very specific limit on executive power vis-a-vis due process, citizens, and drones. The quasi-answer he received was crafted for the purpose of appearing to settle the question without actually offering a meaningful resolution on substance. Parting thoughts: (1) Donald Trump is blasting Paul's filibuster effort as essentially useless. Given today's developments -- and I hate to ask this -- but is Trump right? (2) Shameless duplicity on parade:
David Barron and Martin Lederman, the two DOJ honchos who signed off on the legality of assassinating Awlaki, co-authored a famous critique of Bush’s counterterror policies a few years ago in the Harvard Law Review. They thought warrantless wiretapping, among other techniques used by Bush-era counterterror officials, were unconstitutional; their reward for that was being hired by Obama’s Office of Legal Counsel, where they ended up making the case for … executive authority to kill United States citizens without due process. That’s the second example I can think of in which a prominent left-wing legal academic spent the Bush years inveighing against presidential power gone wild and then joined the Obama administration, only to be tasked with defending power grabs that were arguably even more legally dubious. (Harold Koh was the other.)
Take it away, Glenn Greenwald.
UPDATE - Here's Kevin talking drones, filibusters and cynicism on Bloggingheads TV:
However, without due process in these United States, that will be the beginning of motivated patriots to rebel. I really don't want that to happen, but if the Fedgov goes that far, that means NO one is safe, as we see from wrongfully invaded homes by SWAT teams every day.
NO one is safe, including them, which they don't get. Some responsible LEO's/politicians should inform the macho guys to cool it and stop invading the wrong homes and shooting dogs for no damn reason. I've always been a big supporter of Law Enforcement, but I read every day where they go too far and losing trust in their motives.
!
No one’s been safe in this country since the first day the Kenyan tyrant was first elected.
The Republicans are as much responsible as anyone for first running dipshit John McCain and then running dumbshit Mitt Romney.
What total failures the GOP really, really are and they’re all set to screw up again in ‘16.
“she’ll be safe”
She’ll?
Its bad enough we are even contemplating an attack on American citizens by their own government. PC Crapola too?
Swear to God...we are doomed.
With the weak GOP we currently have, the only way we’re going to stop them is to take their life away, in a very public way.
Waco without the on-scene troops is what they are aiming for. No on-scene witnesses, no media, no fuss, no muss....
Damned things fly so high they can’t be seen. Remote murder.
When 10% of the citizenry is convinced the government cannot get any worse there will be open warfare. We are close, very close.
However, one only has to look at the numerous cases (23, by my count) of Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists plotting inside the U.S., and captured in side the U.S. (List of foiled Islamic terrorist plots in the post-9/11 United States), to realize, in the WSJ's Editorial Board's opinion, literally dozens of Hellfire missiles could be exploding throughout the country. Also, there were several SCOTUS cases which determined Providentially designated "Enemy Combatants" had Habeas Corpus rights. If a suspect who is captured has such rights, how could a mere plotter in a house in Toledo not have such rights?
Charles Krauthammer (In Defense of Obama's Drone War ), John Yoo (Holder, Drones, and Due Process), and Andrew McCarthy (How Should We Treat American Jihadists?) have all discussed this subject.
The obvious conclusion is Congress needs to update the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to reflect a post-Afghanistan Global War on Terror. As the GWOT moves away from "boots on the ground", and more towards intelligence and drones, Congress should be ensuring the citizens' due process rights.
In my personal view, anything goes overseas. Domestically, if a person, regardless of citizenship, is suspected of terrorist activities, they goal should be to apprehend them. Obviously, an imminent threat is different.
At Waco, didn’t they use military vehicles (borrowed from or manned by reserve/guard)? Wasn’t the fire set when a “tank” burst thru a wall? There were a lot of issues Janet El Reno never answered for.
I’m not sure if they were military or not...maybe borrowed by RENO for the murders. There were, however, military ‘advisors’ there, although they claim no military personnel were directly involved (BTW I do not believe this one bit).
The entire action was an ATF publicity f@ckup that escalated into a standoff situation. The ATF could have grabbed Koresh any time they wanted during one of his frequent visits to Waco.
However, the Executive Branch (CLINTON/RENO)were out to make an example of right-wing religious nuts, and this government, now Obama’s government, set out to purposely murder dozens of children, women and men - just like Ruby Ridge. (BTW, Lon Noriuchi, the sniper murderer is reported to have been present at both locations)
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.