I'm not your usual Rand Paul fan. But intellectual honesty is a pretty refreshing trait in Washington, and in this case, it had the added attraction of being a much-needed jolt to a sort of complacency about civil liberties under a nice Democratic administration that seems to have overtaken the left.
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky started talking to draw attention to the idea that the Constitution should be consulted in determining whether the government would have the right to target a drone strike here at home on a United States citizen. Until he stood up, everybody was happy to hear that the administration had no intention of killing any citizens on U.S. soil by drone attack. Why push the issue of whether they could?
I'm not pretending it's obvious or easy.
If you ask me about reconciling assassination by drone with due process of law when I'm in a classroom, I'm going to roll my eyes. But catch me with a credible threat of destruction in this country, and I'll start thinking of all kinds of special courts that could conduct emergency hearings and put a bow on a decision to do something that would be done anyway.
It took the White House a day, but they managed to refine the question into one they could answer, and that answer came in a letter from the attorney general. "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."
How else would you answer it?
On the other hand, what does "not engaged in combat" exactly mean? Not a member of al-Qaida?
Ask any American president offered the opportunity to launch a surgical strike at a terrorist "base" in the United States to avoid a threatened attack on our soil — how could it not be a yes? Any court asked to approve that right? How could they say no?
But even so.
Paul is right to be standing there, as a legislator, raising a hue and cry about constitutionality, which is the responsibility of every elected official to consider and respect. In doing so, he reminds us to look in the mirror, to take seriously what we are dancing around, to ask ourselves what it means that such questions are now being asked and what should guide us, or what we need to claim as guides, in answering them.
In short, if we can't define all of the requirements that must be met for the use of a drone, here or abroad, at least we can focus on the process stuff and insist that there be debate and policy, attention to detail, legal justification, and even judges and warrants to make clear how carefully such decisions must be made.
I used to laugh at people who were willing to "make do" with changes in "process." But having seen just how poorly important decisions can be made has given me pause. If you have to make a written request, you think harder. If you have to write it down and then support it in writing and before a court of judges, you are going to work very hard with your client to make sure that every step is followed, to make sure that your target is who and where it's supposed to be.
In the wake of the new letter, everyone is declaring victory. Paul got the letter. The administration got its nominee. The only unhappy folks are some Republican critics who weren't as impressed as I was with their colleague's commitment to civil liberties.
But these kinds of questions don't really go away; they just keep getting harder. And for questions with no answers, there is only process.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
5 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Ma'am;.... The reason the new right is asking these questions about drones is the same reason the are adamant about assault weapons: They are seriously considering violent revolution, or at least the threat of violence -to get what they want... Look at how uncompromising they are on the budget... It is their right, and they may not be wrong... It could be argued well that everyone in a democracy ought to get what they need from government and should otherwise refuse to go along... True democracies demand consensus, and empower minorities, not so much against majorities, but certainly in defense of their rights...Yet; allow me to give you an example taken from a History of the Supreme Court, Barnard Schwartz.... He quotes a Cardinal Krol, a President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Roe v. Wade decision: " It is hard to think of any decision in the two hundred years of our history which has had a more disasterous implication for our stability as a civilized society.".
Well, if that it so, it is the churches providing the instability... No one is mandating abortions, and no one can have a free society without some fair measure of individual freedom... We no longer live in primitive societies that believe God or the gods will punish the whole society for the crimes of a fews; so while the church might freely do much, making the moral argument all the while, and helping those most likely to have abortions into some system of support and community, it has instead added to the division and instability of stociety to capitalize on the dischord politically...
The right seizes moral issues only because they are at heart divisive...The violent implications of their efforts against America, and Americans is as palpable as the threat of violence delivered repeatedly by the South leading up to the Civil War... The South could see their political support wavering with every new state flooding with immigrants... They knew it was simply a matter of time...
The clock is ticking for the right as well... For the moment they own the Supreme Court as the South once did, but for the Court to rule against Roe v. Wade no matter how much they would gut it by degrees, would only mean their loss, as the Tanney court lost, all credibility...
The right is made up of the most violent element of our society... We may all fear the black men with a gun, but the reality is that far more of white men are armed and ready to use them...Yet; what is their purpose, and why does the right feel such need for their weapons??? They intend violent revolution, but they anticipate violence because they have already in their minds the moral defense of it planted there by their churches and politicians, and see themselves as the injured party, as victims...
They think a defense of property justifies violence, and consider their property free and clear, and never grasp that their title is no better than the government which stands to defend their rights which they undercut to avoid taxation... No taxation without representation does not equate to no taxation, but no taxation does result in no official defense of property rights...If they hold the moral high ground, and say: The taxes spent to feed poverty without the ability to end poverty is gone forever down a rat hole with the rats; then they are correct... Where in that fact is the demand for violence??? Where in revolution does violence become necessary???
The right wants revolution, and many are preparing in some way or another for the break down of government, for anarchy, and for revolution...And in resisting compromise and taxation they are pushing the government to that point of failure... So far I have no difference with them... The revolution the right represents, clothed in false morality, injurious of human freedom, in denial of absolute human need, and abusive of the government they have had more advantage from than anyone- is only counter revolution...
No revolution requires violence... Revolutions only occur when governments fail through their own moral and financial bankruptcy... Counter revolutions begin before revolutions, and usually with violence... Counter revolution in France was a reality before revolution became considerable... The same is true with America and with Russia, that counter revolutionary violence is what brought revolutionary forces to consciousness...Even our civil war was an attempt at counter revolution...But the reason so few societies turn back their social clocks is that it is a mental impossibility, and the mind cannot conceive of it no matter how much people desire it on an emotional level... Think of the generation of suffering that made the rise of hitler possible with his recall of a mythic age of Barabosa...
Those people who can place their hope in old and failed forms are already in church, united in their hatred of the moment, and ready to act out their violent tendencies in rightious bloodletting; but it won't be for good, and it won't be for revolution...
If drones are not used against the criminal right, it will be because they have been found inevitably too expensive and counter productive in the war on terror... We have the idea that if you cut off the head of the snake, that the body dies... Islam is not a snake, and there is enough of democratic support among the right that they are all body, and no head...In any event, the real enemy of the right is not the government they fear, but those people who actually believe in individual rights, and against these human beings the right will always seem what it is: The Enemy of Liberty...In any sort of contest, it will soon become clear that the right fights for privilage and not rights...
Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Mar 8, 2013 5:04 AM
|
|
|
|
This country is and has been for many years in the non-violent revolution by Progressives who desire to distort the Constitution until it is meaningless. You seem to be ok with that.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Oldtimer
Fri Mar 8, 2013 6:12 AM
|
|
|
|
When I first started to read this article I got a little excited. I thought it was fantastic that Susan was supporting Pauls efforts on the floor. But as the article progressed I don't know if she supports it or not. She just brought up that fact that he is drawing attention to this drone issue. She stands on the sidelines on this one and I really wanted her to take a side. Many of her fellow liberal writers have come down against drones, or at least that we need to change our policy. Have some guts Susan, pick a side.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Fri Mar 8, 2013 6:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: James A, Sweeney
The skewed envy driven circular argument and intellectual masterbation of an educated underachiever. LOL!
Comment: #4
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Mar 8, 2013 10:17 AM
|
|
|
|
This administration once wanted to provide a lawyer to every enemy soldier captured on the battlefield before the captive was sent to a prisoner of war camp. Now this administration's chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General of the United States of American, seriously thinks the President might have the right to kill anybody, including US citizens, at any time anywhere on planet earth without Due Process of law. What a good example of how power corrupts.
As a matter of law there is no difference between using a drone and hiring an assassin to shoot a victim in the head. To do either involves you in a homicide. Such a homicide might be lawful under certain narrow exceptions, if the victim presents an imminent threat for example. This was the reason given why Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, which has caused an uproar. But President Obama has killed US citizens in foreign countries under the same claim of right AND THAT'S NOT EVEN SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW!
The Obama Doctrine is that if a US citizens goes abroad the President can write his/her name on a list and then blow the victim to bits. President Obama had an opportunity to set a precedent, namely that no US citizen shall be killed by the US government without Due Process of law. What's not obvious or easy about this?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Cowboy Jay
Fri Mar 8, 2013 10:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
