Eric Holder, in a letter to Rand Paul, states that our President (whom ever it may be) has the Constitutional authority to drone bomb (kill) American citizens on U.S. soil, and without due process. This prompted Paul’s dramatic filibuster yesterday. It may not have stopped John Brennan from becoming CIA Director, but many are calling it a ‘Stroke of Political of Genius‘ for various reasons.
What Does the Highest Law in the Land Say?
Can a sitting U.S. President assassinate American citizens? In answer I would direct the Attorney General’s attention to Article Three of the United States Constitution, and in particular section three which states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
The Treason Clause is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government and clearly the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, which rules out both drone strikes on American citizens as well as rules out a trial by military commission. As Madison noted, the Treason Clause was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “giving them aid and comfort to her enemies.” Such a crime may warrant death, but only after the accused has had their day in court and faced Two Witnesses to the alleged crime and been found guilty by a jury. What is it you fail to understand about his Mr Holder? Please explain this to our dear Nobel Peace Prizing-wining President, he may be a Constitution lawyer but he seems to have forgotten the Treason Clause.
Okay, so the Constitution is clear, the government can’t just kill it’s own people. This lead us to the next question: How does team Obama justifies the killing of a 16-Year-Old American? Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president’s campaign suggests the boy should have “had a more responsible father.” That’s it? That all they can say about it? Shame on the national media for not make this more of an issue until now. It has taken a filibuster by Rand Paul to bring this issue to light for many people.
Filibuster called ‘Stroke of Political Genius’
Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) with help from other junior senators, the filibuster stretched more than 11 hours and was aimed at drawing attention to deep concern on both sides of the aisle about the administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones in its fight against terrorists and whether the government would ever use them in the United States.
From Yahoo news - Filibustering like a boss
The filibuster is working for Paul for a number of reasons. First, there’s the novelty and drama of pulling a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style feat — and, from all reports, doing it quite coherently. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) got some similarly glowing press for his eight-and-a-half hour Senate talkathon in 2010. Paul one-upped him, though. Through some combination of design, stamina, and serendipity, Paul has become the toast of Twitter and the big story in Washington.
The issues of when to use remote-control warfare, what boundaries we should have for fighting terrorism and domestic surveillance, when the government can use lethal force against American citizens, and what constitutes due process are complicated and filled with ample grey areas. But Paul can look like at least a minor hero to so many people because of the one big idea uniting the motley #StandWithRand crew: We should really be having this conversation in the U.S., now, publicly, before (probably non-lethal) drones above our heads become just another part of this American life.
As I read the comments at Yahoo News I was surprised they were mostly positive… before I got my hopes up that Americans were starting to wake up, I skipped over to the Huffington Post and read the comments there. That quickly brought me back to reality. Those who called themselves “liberal” just don’t get it…..and I thought being liberal means you care about civil liberties, what ever happened to those liberal ideals about liberty? Here is one liberal who does get it:
Of course, if a Republican was still President, Obama would be on the senate floor supporting Rand Paul on this issue. This is why I am done with the fake left. Had enough of that ignorant and unfounded self-righteousness. Are the Republican any better? No, not from my perspective. However, we may be seeing a “rebRANDing” taking place as is being pointed out over at breitbart.com:
Paul’s performance signaled a groundshift in the power base of the Republican Party. While establishment figures like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) weredining with President Obama, Paul was drawing the nation’s attention from the floor of the Senate with his invocation of the most basic of all Senate rights: the right to be heard, in the fashion of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. And because Paul picked an issue of transparency – and an issue on which both left and right generally agree that lines must be drawn – he had few detractors, even though Democrats stonewalled his proposed resolutions attempting to draw lines regarding drone strikes.
Paul’s dramatic action today may not have stopped John Brennan from becoming CIA Director. But that was not the point. He proved that conservatism in America is not merely alive, but that it has the potential for post-partisanship. He proved that conservatives can still seize the narrative, and fight back against an authoritarian-minded, non-transparent administration. And he proved that a new generation of conservatives is about to take the field for Republicans. Over the next 24 hours, look for the Democrat-Media Complex to strike back against Paul. They know the battle is on.
Finally, it appears that Republicans do too.
Tea Party minded folks from all parties still need a new party. This is not a reflection on republican party – so it would not be helpful to get excited for GOP. This is really just a Rand Paul thing (with help from Cruz, Lee, and Rubio) and he is just riding the coattails of his father. Rand is more libertarian conservative – and the GOP will never support him until he swings more in the NEO-CON direction (that’s how the Hegelian Dialectic works). Don’t fool yourself, Rand is not his father. What I see is just another opportunist, but at least this one is getting the rhetoric on-point. Whatever his motives maybe, he has now become the leading voice for liberty and a return to Constitutional government. Meanwhile, the anti-Rand Pauls, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, took to the Senate floor this morning to defend killing American citizens at presidential discretion. The Republican Party is at war, folks, and let’s hope Rand Paul and his troops win for the sake of individual liberty.
Is There A Hidden Agenda or Conspiracy In the Works?
What is the real agenda behind this policy of drones over America?
World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah actually voiced his concern about Obama being reelected, saying that he believed Obama would “kill journalists” if he won a second term. Today Mike Adams of Natural News and gone even farther and has stated in no uncertain terms that “the stage is being set to wage an all-out war with the American people.” Here is what Mike says, and following his logic is quit easy to do:
So now it all becomes clear:
1) The NDAA legalized the federal government arresting, detaining and torturing American citizens if they were classified as “terrorists.”
2) The DOJ drone-killing memo legalized the President murdering anyone he names by simply claimingthey might be associated with “terrorists.”
3) The DHS announces that anyone who isn’t an absolutely Big Government boot-licker and Obama worshipper IS A TERRORIST.
And there you have it: The full circle of justification to use military drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Simply call them terrorists, and the rest of the legal framework backs you up.
I repeat: All that is necessary to justify the murder of American citizens without trial is labeling them “terrorists” even with no evidence to support such a claim. The drone killings require no evidence. They only require the signature of one man.
Does that seem alarmist? Maybe it is…. but then again, maybe the conspiracy minded people like Mike Adams and Alex Jones have been right all along when they say “people like Obama have been placed in power precisely because he can fool enough people for a sufficient amount of time to get this plan underway without popular resistance.” How else can you explain why Obama has brought so many of the old Bush crones into his administration? It is become increasing hard to deny we are seeing a continuity of agenda (under both Republican and Democrat leadership) as we march toward a police state.
Who is John Brennan?
Short answer: Obama’s choice to lead the spy agency, who has overseen the drone program. During the Bush administration, Brennan supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Program, extraordinary rendition, and enhanced interrogation techniques. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Brennan changed that stance, saying repeatedly that the Obama administration would not condone torture.
- Took a job as an intelligence director at the CIA in 1980
- Led counter-terrorism efforts for a variety of CIA programs in the 1990s
- Became CIA director George Tenet’s chief of staff in 1999
- Served as CIA deputy executive director, 2001-2003
- Took a job at the National Counter-Terrorism Center, 2004-2005
No politically appointed official in U.S. history has played such a prominent role in killing so many people outside of a war zone as John Brennan. The predominant counterterrorism tool under Obama has been targeted killings in non-battlefield settings, and Brennan reportedly oversees and manages the 100-person inter-agency process that nominates and vets suspected militants and terrorists for the United States’ various kill lists — implemented by the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command. Obama’s has been a “lethal presidency,” and Brennan is the Lethal Bureaucrat. Despite his close relationship to Obama and preeminent duty in coordinating the kill lists, he has flown largely under the mainstream media’s radar save for a few article at Salon.com. That is, until this politically self-serving stunt by Rand Paul.
Okay, so I’m not a big fan of Rand, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT RAND (or Obama).
It is about liberty and tyranny.
It is about our Constitution and our Republic.