Allow me to open this post with a brilliant article from the WSJ:
Before going further, I'd like to point out that the drone program and the protocols for it were put into place by the Republican administration of George W. Bush. Obama may have aggressively utilized it, but military brass have confirmed that the protocols for use are largely preserved from the previous administration. With that information in mind, let me attempt to dissect a few statements people are making about the filibuster:
Statement 1: Rand Paul started the filibuster when Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general, sent him a letter saying that the US can bomb American citizens on American soil without warning.
First of all, Rand Paul asked a simple question: Can the US authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on US soil without warning? Eric Holder responded with the following:
1) The US must use the criminal justice system first.
2) If that is not available, the US may under extreme circumstances, hypothetically, authorize a drone strike in the event of a national terrorist attack, on the scale of 9/11.
Rand Paul took this to mean: The US can hypothetically kill anyone at any time on US soil, regardless of their citizenship and without trial or warning.
And thus, he began an epic and dramatic filibuster to protest the egregious due process violation.
VERDICT: Half-True
Statement 2: The US has a poor drone strike use protocol that is dangerous and unconstitutional
Allow me to present you with an incredibly awesome diagram that may help you out:
http://www.theatlantic.com/misc/disposition-matrix/
So immediately we understand that a drone strike, Option 13 on this diagram is a last-resort scenario. This is stated, formal US policy. BTW, go to the link I provided to see an interactive version of this diagram with greater detail and explanation. So immediately we learn a few things:
Unless the suspect is a confirmed terrorist who would be convicted in a criminal court, cannot be arrested by the US or its allies, and poses an imminent threat to the US, he cannot be taken out with lethal force.
VERDICT: FALSE
Statement 3: When an American citizen engages in war against the US, he no longer needs to be tried before being killed
This simply makes sense if you think about it. Imagine if an American joined the Nazis in WWII. No one would think twice if he was killed - he's an enemy combatant acting under an actor the US is at war with. If that same American citizen was living in the US as a Nazi spy, the US would attempt to apprehend him but if he died in some sort of shootout, no one would think twice.
There are two factors that make the terrorist scenario more uncertain. Terrorists are non-state actors. In short, they could be anyone. Drones are remote weapons of destruction. These two factors combine to make us uncomfortable with the idea that drones could be authorized to take out a suspect. But think of it this way. A drone is nothing more than a hovercraft with a form of artillery mounted upon it. Imagine if a man bunkered down in a shootout with police. Would we feel queasy about taking him out with a helicopter? Probably not. A drone is not that much different. The bottom line is that when you engage in war with America, you are in danger of losing your due process rights. BTW, the concept of due process rights being suspended isn't a new one. Just as your right to vote can be suspended or your right to bear arms (if you are a convicted felon), your due process rights can be suspended in the situation outlined above.
VERDICT: Mostly TRUE
Statement 4: But as Rand Paul repeatedly said, America could kill just about anybody on suspicions of terrorist activity, right?
Rand Paul spouted on and on about the fact that Americans going to Starbucks, sitting in a cafe, railing against the government, etc. could be taken out by a drone. He mentioned Jane Fonda and her visit to Hanoi, Vietnam. But as the WSJ eloquently explained, this scenario is complete sensationalism. Furthermore, Eric Holder sent the following letter to Rand Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American citizen not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
VERDICT: FALSE
Statement 5: The filibuster accomplished something
If you mean great publicity for Rand Paul, greater discussion of the use of drones, increase in donations for Rand Paul, great publicity for pundits and "experts", and buzz, then yes. But other than that, the filibuster accomplished nothing. We've forgotten that technically, the purpose of the filibuster was to bar the nomination of Mark Brennan to CIA head. Mr. Brennan is a long-time CIA official who came to prominence under Bush. He is by no means an Obama stooge. And in the end, his nomination went through without much fuss.
Allow me to sum it up with a statement from the National Review:
"The Rand Paul filibuster was great entertainment and will probably mark a new stage in his emergence as a national figure. We salute his brio, even if we suspect he is ultimately fighting a phantom menace."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342375/rand-paul-s-drone-war-editors
VERDICT: Just Barely True
Statement 6: Rand Paul is a National Hero
For what? For protesting something that wasn't true? For spouting off all kinds of untruths that got requoted by conservatives who didn't actually understand their validity? For ultimately accomplishing nothing?
On the flip side, I applaud him for his courage, his tenacity, and his focus on the Constitution. Maybe this futile piece of political theater will convince more people to evaluate policy using the Constitution. So is he a national hero? Possibly.
Just remember that for every incensed conservative who ate up everything he said, there is a jaded liberal somewhere who thought it was a complete joke. I was personally miffed to read a conservative editorial which basically attacked the WSJ for pointing out the facts "because it detracted from the significance of Rand Paul taking it to the "One"' as they call Obama. In other words, don't let the facts get in the way of the sensationalist "victory" we just achieved over Obama. They even called Holder's second letter a true concession. It was simply a clarification.
Verdict: Half True, Half False
Like most situations in life, the Rand Paul Filibuster is complicated. Is he a hero or a goat? The answer is probably somewhere in between.
Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing. As a snow storm descended on Washington, the Kentucky Republican's old-fashioned filibuster Wednesday filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship.
Shortly before noon, Senator Paul began a talking filibuster against John Brennan's nomination to lead the CIA. The tactic is rarely used in the Senate and was last seen in 2010. But Senator Paul said an "alarm" had to be sounded about the threat to Americans from their own government. He promised to speak "until the President says, no, he will not kill you at a café." He meant by a military drone. He's apparently serious, though his argument isn't.
Senator Paul had written the White House to inquire about the possibility of a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on American soil. Attorney General Eric Holder replied that the U.S. hasn't and "has no intention" to bomb any specific territory. Drones are limited to the remotest areas of conflict zones like Pakistan and Yemen. But as a hypothetical Constitutional matter, Mr. Holder acknowledged the President can authorize the use of lethal military force within U.S. territory.
This shocked Senator Paul, who invoked the Constitution and Miranda rights. Under current U.S. policy, Mr. Paul mused on the floor, Jane Fonda could have been legally killed by a Hellfire missile during her tour of Communist Hanoi in 1972. A group of noncombatants sitting in public view in Houston may soon be pulverized, he declared.
Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane.
Such a conflict exists between the U.S. and al Qaeda, so Mr. Holder is right that the U.S. could have targeted (say) U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki had he continued to live in Virginia. The U.S. killed him in Yemen before he could kill more Americans. But under the law Awlaki was no different than the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island in World War II, were captured and executed.
The country needs more Senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that
fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he's talking about.
fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he's talking about.
Statement 1: Rand Paul started the filibuster when Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general, sent him a letter saying that the US can bomb American citizens on American soil without warning.
First of all, Rand Paul asked a simple question: Can the US authorize a drone strike against an American citizen on US soil without warning? Eric Holder responded with the following:
1) The US must use the criminal justice system first.
2) If that is not available, the US may under extreme circumstances, hypothetically, authorize a drone strike in the event of a national terrorist attack, on the scale of 9/11.
Rand Paul took this to mean: The US can hypothetically kill anyone at any time on US soil, regardless of their citizenship and without trial or warning.
And thus, he began an epic and dramatic filibuster to protest the egregious due process violation.
VERDICT: Half-True
Statement 2: The US has a poor drone strike use protocol that is dangerous and unconstitutional
Allow me to present you with an incredibly awesome diagram that may help you out:
http://www.theatlantic.com/misc/disposition-matrix/
So immediately we understand that a drone strike, Option 13 on this diagram is a last-resort scenario. This is stated, formal US policy. BTW, go to the link I provided to see an interactive version of this diagram with greater detail and explanation. So immediately we learn a few things:
Unless the suspect is a confirmed terrorist who would be convicted in a criminal court, cannot be arrested by the US or its allies, and poses an imminent threat to the US, he cannot be taken out with lethal force.
VERDICT: FALSE
Statement 3: When an American citizen engages in war against the US, he no longer needs to be tried before being killed
This simply makes sense if you think about it. Imagine if an American joined the Nazis in WWII. No one would think twice if he was killed - he's an enemy combatant acting under an actor the US is at war with. If that same American citizen was living in the US as a Nazi spy, the US would attempt to apprehend him but if he died in some sort of shootout, no one would think twice.
There are two factors that make the terrorist scenario more uncertain. Terrorists are non-state actors. In short, they could be anyone. Drones are remote weapons of destruction. These two factors combine to make us uncomfortable with the idea that drones could be authorized to take out a suspect. But think of it this way. A drone is nothing more than a hovercraft with a form of artillery mounted upon it. Imagine if a man bunkered down in a shootout with police. Would we feel queasy about taking him out with a helicopter? Probably not. A drone is not that much different. The bottom line is that when you engage in war with America, you are in danger of losing your due process rights. BTW, the concept of due process rights being suspended isn't a new one. Just as your right to vote can be suspended or your right to bear arms (if you are a convicted felon), your due process rights can be suspended in the situation outlined above.
VERDICT: Mostly TRUE
Statement 4: But as Rand Paul repeatedly said, America could kill just about anybody on suspicions of terrorist activity, right?
Rand Paul spouted on and on about the fact that Americans going to Starbucks, sitting in a cafe, railing against the government, etc. could be taken out by a drone. He mentioned Jane Fonda and her visit to Hanoi, Vietnam. But as the WSJ eloquently explained, this scenario is complete sensationalism. Furthermore, Eric Holder sent the following letter to Rand Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American citizen not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
VERDICT: FALSE
Statement 5: The filibuster accomplished something
If you mean great publicity for Rand Paul, greater discussion of the use of drones, increase in donations for Rand Paul, great publicity for pundits and "experts", and buzz, then yes. But other than that, the filibuster accomplished nothing. We've forgotten that technically, the purpose of the filibuster was to bar the nomination of Mark Brennan to CIA head. Mr. Brennan is a long-time CIA official who came to prominence under Bush. He is by no means an Obama stooge. And in the end, his nomination went through without much fuss.
Allow me to sum it up with a statement from the National Review:
"The Rand Paul filibuster was great entertainment and will probably mark a new stage in his emergence as a national figure. We salute his brio, even if we suspect he is ultimately fighting a phantom menace."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342375/rand-paul-s-drone-war-editors
VERDICT: Just Barely True
Statement 6: Rand Paul is a National Hero
For what? For protesting something that wasn't true? For spouting off all kinds of untruths that got requoted by conservatives who didn't actually understand their validity? For ultimately accomplishing nothing?
On the flip side, I applaud him for his courage, his tenacity, and his focus on the Constitution. Maybe this futile piece of political theater will convince more people to evaluate policy using the Constitution. So is he a national hero? Possibly.
Just remember that for every incensed conservative who ate up everything he said, there is a jaded liberal somewhere who thought it was a complete joke. I was personally miffed to read a conservative editorial which basically attacked the WSJ for pointing out the facts "because it detracted from the significance of Rand Paul taking it to the "One"' as they call Obama. In other words, don't let the facts get in the way of the sensationalist "victory" we just achieved over Obama. They even called Holder's second letter a true concession. It was simply a clarification.
Verdict: Half True, Half False
Like most situations in life, the Rand Paul Filibuster is complicated. Is he a hero or a goat? The answer is probably somewhere in between.
No comments:
Post a Comment