I realize I might be a few days late here, but this has been on my mind all weekend and I finally have time to sit down. I was happy to hear about Rand Paul’s filibuster last week. It brought a very serious subject to the minds of a lot of people who didn’t previously know or care about the drone situation in the United States.
What prompted Rand Paul’s filibuster was a response he received from Eric Holder to a letter Paul wrote to John Brennan on February 20 asking for clarification on whether or not the President has the authority to take out an American citizen, specifically with a drone strike, on American soil, without a trial. Eric Holder’s response was scary. He said it is unlikely, but possible, to occur. You can read a copy of the letter here.
I could write about all the truly innocent lives lost to American drone strikes overseas, and if they don’t care about foreign civilians, why should I expect them to care about our lives? But what angered me more than Eric Holder’s honest response (at least he didn’t just lie and say, “no”) was what John McCain said last Thursday in response to Paul’s filibuster.
For all of you who never heard John McCain speak, he was a POW in Vietnam. I’m not sure what gets mentioned more often, John Kerry’s Purple Hearts, or John McCain’s time as a POW? So since he was a POW, we’re supposed to hold his opinions higher than any others. McCain said it is “a stretch of imagination” and “ridiculous” that any US president would bomb a Jane Fonda in a coffee shop. And to be honest with you, I really don’t think that any president would bomb someone who disagrees with the administration. I really do believe (maybe naively) that this law is there with the intention to protect the United States against terrorism.
Unfortunately, there is that document called the Constitution that our elected politicians and soldiers, including John McCain, swear to uphold.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
So, John, (who I’m sure is a big McFloogle reader) can you tell me how you are upholding the Constitution when you defend an administration who admits it is possible to bomb an American citizen on American soil without a trial? I am shocked that this could even be debated on the floor of Congress. As painful as it may be for many people to admit, all Americans, without exception, are protected from the government by the Constitution.
Who gets to decide who is guilty? Who is making the list? Are any Americans really comfortable with one person, or one administration, deciding who is a threat? Is it possible that they could be wrong? Innocent people are arrested all the time. Why should we think the feds are incapable of making a mistake? Take a look at the 20th century to find others who had that same power…Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, among others. I’m not saying that Obama will be the next one, but he is already responsible for more deaths than Bush. Where did all the war protestors go?
My point is, even if the American is a card holding member of Al-Qaeda, he is still protected by the Constitution. If they know where he is and what he is doing, wouldn’t it be in the administration’s best interest to detain him and get information instead of dropping a bomb on him? No one, especially the federal government, can just decide someone is guilty. Instead of drones, why don’t we just have a federal agent walk into the target’s home and put a bullet in his head. That would eliminate any collateral damage from a drone. Would people still be in favor of that?
God Bless Freedom, Liberty, and Personal Property,
Slappy Jones II
I think you hit the nail on the head, but I’m going to try to push you a little with a bit of devil’s advocate.
First of all, it’s all well and good that you don’t want to use drone strikes against American citizens, but what happens if there’s a serious threat to our national security? Isn’t it better for one man who is probably guilty of conspiring against the US to die instead of risking the lives of possibly thousands of innocent civilians? If on the morning of 9/11, you had the a strong suspect of Al Qaeda in your crosshairs but had a 50/50 chance at being correct, would you give the order to kill him in order to save the lives of all the people who died that day?
And you’re bringing up the Constitution. That was written hundreds of years ago, before there were high tech terrorists and nuclear warheads available. Don’t you think the Founding Fathers would have wanted the government to have a little bit of power to fight against combatants? And even in the Fifth Amendment you quoted, it mentions the battlefield. The war is all around us, including on our own soil. We have to take every step possible to eliminate terrorism. And if you’re not doing anything wrong, why would you even be suspected in the first place?
You and I don’t have all of the information. People in the government, John McCain included, have way more knowledge and understanding of the situation than we’ll ever have. They’ve kept us safe so far.
Nice, a challenge from Rollo. It is late and I have to be up for work tomorrow…Ok, here we go,
Define a serious threat to national security. Is a serious threat someone who emails a relative in Syria? Is a serious threat someone who says, “I agree with Al-Qaeda?” Is a serious threat someone on a computer arguing for less government intrusion? Who makes that decision? If you have a 50/50 chance you’re looking at a terrorist, you also have a 50/50 chance you’re dealing with an innocent civilian. Even if it is 90/10, 1 in 10 is innocent. If you have this person in the crosshairs, why not interview him? I’ve been reading a lot about the Soviet Union lately. Stalin declared anyone he wanted, even fellow communists, as enemies of the state. They had to be eliminated. Like I said in the article, I do not think Obama would do that, but if the next president potentially could. Whether or not it would happen, the fact that it could happen should be enough to shoot it down.
If you catch someone in a crime you can detain him. If you have evidence that someone wants to hijack a plane, then see him at the airport, I’d say you have reasonable suspicion to have a chat with him. Would you? I think that is a much better option than having someone at the airport check it put a bullet in the suspect’s head.
The Constitution, as we have discussed, is timeless, with inalienable rights. All humans throughout history have had the same rights, regardless of the year.
I purposely posted the entire amendment instead of just the part that helps my argument. Remember, the Constitution protects all citizens from the government. “Those who give up liberty for freedom. deserve neither”. Last I checked, there was no declaration of war, and definitely not one on Americans. If there is evidence to murder a civilian, there should be evidence to detain that civilian. The war on terror can be a very slippery slope. Is a peaceful American, who is truly is no threat, but sympathizes with Al-Qaeda, a terrorist? What about rappers who rap against the police? What about the Bush era war protestors? Could that not be seen as a threat to our security? How about politicians the administration disagrees with? Where is the line and who decides it?
You’re right, we have been kept safe. We could be kept even safer if they pass laws that outlaw guns or vehicles. They could pass a law that says you cannot leave your house. Instead of outlawing cars, just make it illegal to drive when it is raining. That would keep us safer too.
Rollo,
I get your point about national security – however in what instance previously would this have mattered – by mattered I mean where would a drone have made a difference or been the only option? For example your 9/11 point – at what point would a drone been used in that situation? Before take off you obviously wouldn’t because the plane was the weapon. not to mention the information that you could have gotten – after take off one would assume the collateral damage from blowing up a plane in flight would be tough to calculate as opposed to the flight going into a building. Not to mention that no in flight hijacking had ever occurred like this before. People had to assume there would be a ransom or something along those lines – not planes being crashed into buildings along the eastern sea board. And I do believe that none of the 19 hijackers in that example were U.S Citizens, which is besides the point but since that’s the premise of the question isn’t the best of examples. What I am trying to get at is – What would there need to happen for the US to use a drone on US soil? And is the government suggesting that in the history of this country there have been instances that you can point to and say a drone would have changed the outcome? Also wouldn’t/couldn’t it breed complacent behavior in the CIA if they know they can dial up a drone whenever needed? Just trying to stir the conversation…
D.J. Gaggy Gag
Slappy Jones nailed it. While it’s true that the battlefield in the War on Terrorism may actually be on American soil, there is still structure in place to adhere to the Constitution. We have emergency courts and judges available 24 hours a day to sign warrants for national security purposes. Even if a threat is imminent, we can still afford due process to citizens. As far as Senator McCain is concerned, I found his criticisms of Senator Paul extremely disconcerting. Senator Paul’s filibuster was a genuine effort to highlight a potential threat to citizens’ civil liberties. It is scary that Senator McCain has become so blinded by power during his tenure in office that he no longer appreciates citizens’ skepticism of their government. This is a guiding principle to our republic and the inspiration for our Bill of Rights. I found it laughable how the Senator referenced Jane Fonda is his response. During the Vietnam conflict, she provided “aid and comfort” to our enemy. These actions are, by definition, treasonous. I believe the Constitution would actually support a drone strike in this scenario. Perhaps Senator McCain should re-examine the document he took an oath to support and defend.