I grow weary of the stupid. Rand Paul asked Attorney General Eric Holder if he believed that the administration had the legal right to use drone strikes on American citizens while they are on American soil. It’s a perfectly legitimate question. Eric Holder responded by saying basically, no because we have courts and prosecutors and juries and stuff. Then he scrinched up his brow, thought really hard, and wrote this:
“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.”
Or, you know, an alien invasion or zombie apocalypse.
Would the president have the legal right to use our military to defend against a massive aerial attack on our navy or a bunch of hijacked planes hurtling towards our skyscrapers and the Pentagon?
Obviously, not. That would be tyranny.
Because remember when Dick Cheney waited too long to issue an order to down Flight 93 and then lied about it? That was only a problem because he wasn’t the commander in chief and he wasn’t deputized to give orders. No one seriously suggested that the problem was that Americans would be killed if the plane was shot down. They were going to die anyway.
So, what does Rand Paul say about this?
“Are you going to drop … a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked.
I am assuming that he considers that a bad idea.
Anyway, he wasn’t satisfied with Holder’s answer and so he has pledged to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination to be the new director of the CIA until he can speak no more.
“That Americans could be killed in a café in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Ky., is an abomination,” Paul said. “It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. I don’t rise to oppose John Brennan’s nomination simply for the person. I rise today for the principle.”
This is another example of an idiot taking an issue that has merit and making it seem ridiculous because STUPID.
Whenever Paul keels over and dies, Reid has 60 votes for Brennan’s confirmation.
you had me at the title.
Did you see Kevin Drum on this?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/03/killing-american-citizens-american-soil-take-2
Just like when you say (for example, not that this would ever happen in a million, billion years) that we’re against torture, except in this or that very well-defined scenario, like the ticking time bomb*.
When there are exceptions carved out for the sudden execution of persons without charge or warning, the very existence of that exception template becomes the rationale for fitting all kinds of things into it. The Anwar al-Awlaki assassination has been excused on the grounds that al-Awlaki was a very, very bad person, he was too hard to get at, and he might have been involved or about to be involved in something very, very bad. So, when he was riding in a car down some road in Yemen, the United States was perfectly justified in blowing him to pieces by the push of a button on some joystick somewhere. Anyone luckless enough to be in the blast zone probably deserved their deaths, as well.
When the Attorney General starts talking “hypotheticals” and pooh-poohing the notion that the military would routinely be raining down death from above on citizens, there are persons in a position to order such things who see that as a green light to make the extraordinary routine. After all, how do we know for sure that the person or group targeted isn’t about to do something really, really heinous? Or thinking about doing something really, really heinous? Then the script flips, and people who maintain some fealty to quaint old concepts like “evidence” and “due process” are accused of wanting something really, really heinous to befall us, and why don’t you just go back to Russia, you commie?
*A hypothetical scenario that is, on its face, ludicrous.
There is no justification for the government murdering Americans in America (or anywhere else that comes to mind). Things like Ruby Ridge, etc, were ground-level confrontations. The victims/perps had a chance to negotiate and stop firing or holding hostages. Death from the air, Afghanistan/Pakistan style, is still murder, plain and simple.
I agree. But if you look at the video TPM put up of Cruz questioning Holder, it’s disturbing how hard it is to get him to just say no. That’s only remotely positive thing I’ve ever seen associated with Cruz so far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yyKjwFvQw6s
But Holder did say no. The Attorney General is on the record, saying no. He seemed mystified that the strong statements in his letter to Paul and his answers to Cruz were being interpreted as “yes” somehow, so he said “no”.
I want to make clear that it was also important for me to hear the AG say that. I’m sorry he said “no” in a way which disappoints you. Me, I’ll take it.
Yet, I’m listening to Senator Paul blather on at this moment on the Senate floor about the possibility of a drone killing someone in a cafe in the United States, when Holder dismissed EXACTLY THAT SCENARIO in both his letter to him and his testimony today before the Senate. No one’s this stupid. He’s just being intentionally, insufferably difficult.
Yeah, he did fucking disappoint me. Cruz gave him a hypothetical about as easy to say “no, in my legal opinion it’s not constitutional” and he couldn’t step up. How hard is to give a clear unequivocal answer on this topic?
That’s as disturbing as it is infuriating.
No, Cruz’ hypothetical started out preposterously. The Senator started by asking if it could be Constitutional for an American citizen sitting quietly in a cafe and posing no imminent threat to be killed by a drone. To which Holder responded, under that scenario the Constitution wouldn’t even allow him to be arrested! Then Cruz piled on the qualifiers: the cafe-sitter is well-known to be a terrorist, etc, to which Holder responded we arrest people who fit that scenario, we don’t use any lethal force, drone or other. Cruz identifies the importance of hearing “no”, Holder becomes more secure in the specifics of the hypothetical scenario the Senator is proposing, and the AG becomes willing to give an unequivocal answer to the hypothetical.
An important thing to consider is that Holder knows who’s questioning him here. Senator Ted Cruz most frequently asks his questions with malicious contempt. From the start, he gives off the energy of someone who is acting in bad faith. I don’t blame Holder one bit for being exceedingly careful in his answers to this asshole.
Do you see the distinction in your summary?v”We arrest people who fit that scenario, we don’t use lethal force.” That’s a variant of “trust us” and it is one of the worst things about the Obama administration.
I’ll admit I may be influenced because I don’t think drones should be used on Americans by Americans ever (hell I hate the existence of drones in general).
I’m about to lose my temper. I hear your concern, I’ve had that same concern myself in the past, but TODAY, TODAY HOLDER GAVE AN UNEQUIVOCAL FINAL ANSWER THAT EXCLUDED DRONES AND ANY OTHER USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN RESPONSE TO A SHIFTING HYPOTHETICAL FROM A RAGING ASSHOLE SENATOR WHO WAS ASKING HIS QUESTIONS IN BAD FAITH.
What in God’s name do you want from the man?
It’s pretty simple, I want him to not give legal cover to constitutional violations/war crimes. I’m disappointed it’s not out there in public quicker and more plainly (the secret legal analysis for instance). I don’t see why that is making you froth at the keyboard.
Holder said “no”.
You still claim he’s giving “legal cover to constitutional violations/war crimes.”
How is that again? For which violations is he providing cover?
He did the exact thing you wanted him to do. But he didn’t do it quickly enough, or the right way, or something.
I’m very much interested in the exact same things you are, which is why yesterday’s testimony pleased me.
You, you appear as the complaining customer in this skit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgi7QCu1qAo
Finally, the way Holder said “no” yesterday will not defend him from a big, juicy perjury conviction if it turns out he didn’t quite mean the “no” he plainly said.
I’m not claiming anything of the kind in this matter.
The war crimes/constitutional statement was general. You asked what I wanted, I want a regime that follows international law (ex: subject to ICJ), domestic law (ex: no indefinite detention), and prosecutes war criminals that are American (ex: cheney). That’s in general. Specifically?
<quote>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 is no.</quote>This has the potential to be expanded on in a positive way, it answers the base question and acknowledges some limit on the war making power of the executive. That’s giving me what I want. Yesterday gave me what I want. Yet you are somehow offended that I dare want it to have happened weeks ago? I am never going to be satisfied. I will always want things more rapidly and more public. That is good practice. The government isn’t some neighbor I want to be on good terms with, it works for ME and I am never going to let up so I can help make it the best government possible.
Use <blockquote></blockquote>
“We arrest people who fit that scenario, we don’t use lethal force.” That’s a variant of “trust us”
No, it’s not. It’s a “variant” of “No,” minus the “variant” part.
He said no. You are grasping at straws here.
There’s such a thing as context, and Cruz’ statement was clearly in the context of someone who would be a target under the standards that have been applied overseas. He obviously was not asking about killing a random person for no reason, and he explicitly invoked that context by framing his question as a follow-up to the Paul letter. Holder’s response was deliberately obtuse. Then Cruz asked repeatedly about Constitutionality, and Holder responded repeatedly regarding appropriateness, which, if it implies anything, implies that the act is constitutional, as appropriateness is moot if it is not. Holder said he wouldn’t address hypotheticals. Law implicitly involves hypotheticals because it addresses situations that have not yet occurred. Holder’s own examples of Pearl Harbot and 9-11 were hypotheticals or they were gibberish, as it would obviously be impossible for those exact events to recur, so he must be talking about hypothetical events that would be similar in relevant ways, which is fine, but you don’t get to do that and pretend that there’s something wrong with hypotheticals.
After all that, Holder said “take my comment as no”. But by answering in that way, he avoiding answering the question directly, while making it sound like he said no. No to what? Which comment? Strictly speaking, “take my comment as no” is like “Call me Ismael” – it is an imperative, not a statement of fact, so it doesn’t mean “my name is Ismael” or “my comment means no”. Take my comment as no is ambiguous, so he’s serving a public relations purpose while not actually making a legal commitment.
And another contextual circumstance in this colloquy was that it was Senator Cruz asking these questions of Holder. Do we have any doubt that Cruz, in every fiber of his being, wants to begin impeachment proceedings tomorrow, and sees every questioning of every Administration official or nominee as an opportunity to gather horseshit that could help him engineer just that? Do you have any doubt that the current House of Representatives would successfully impeach the President if they saw the slightest opening, such as might be created by the fallout from an incorrect or poorly worded answer from the Attorney General?
You are Goddamn right Holder was answering these questions carefully. And I’m extremely grateful he did so. In the end, really, who’s being obtuse here? I ask you, do you really believe Holder was unclear in his answer that it would be unconstitutional AND inappropriate to use ANY LETHAL FORCE WHATSOEVER against an American under the extremely specific scenario which was finally settled upon? I think he was exceedingly patient under hostile questioning. EVEN CRUZ noted that Holder moved past the “verbal gymnastics” and answered “no”. What, you’re taking a tougher interpretation than Cruz here? C’mon, man.
Feel free to read some of my earlier comments on drones. I think the INTERNATIONAL drone program is questionable on both policy and law, much less these domestic questions, and the Administration’s previous classification of both the execution of the drone program overseas and its legal presumptions seem unjustified and dangerous to me.
But today’s statement by Holder was meaningful, and it’s wrong to pretend it wasn’t. I’m encouraged by the Administration’s recent moves to increase their cooperation with Congressional oversight. I’m also encouraged by Brennan’s past and present stated view that the portion of the drone program currently executed by the CIA needs to be taken away and housed entirely under the military. The Administration needs to continue to move toward fuller Congressional oversight and better policies, but I give them the current credit they’re earning.
What is at stake here is law and principles and reason. Therefore, this cannot be reduced to personalities. It doesn’t matter if the questions were raised by Cruz, nor his personal reasons for raising them. They are valid and important questions, and Holder evaded them. First Cruz asked if the administration could kill an American on American soil who did not constitute an immediate threat. Cruz did not include in his initial formulation the reason the US government would want to kill this person, because if the answer is no, it does not matter. The specifics only matter if there are situations where the answer could be yes. Holder treated the specifics are significant, implying the answer was yes. So Cruz filled in some specifics, and Holder then responded to a direct question about Constitutionality with a statement about appropriateness. When it was correctly pointed out that this was evading the question, he did it again. And again. Many things that are legal and constitutional are inappropriate; propriety is chiefly a matter of judgment. The question of appropriateness only arises if the matter is legal; otherwise, propriety is moot. So in reacting with this, Holder implied that the answer was yes, three more times. And it wasn’t just the word “appropriate”; he spoke of what the government “typically” does, how they “would” handle it. This all implies discretion.
There was no very specific situation finally agreed upon. After the first iteration, Cruz expounded what was obviously implicit to circumvent Holder’s first line of evasion. There were no further modifications to the hypothetical, and the question was posed repeatedly. So, no, Holder did not change his response when the hypothetical was made more specific. He just changed his evasive tactic.
Only when Cruz tried to drop the subject and move on to the next item he wanted to cover in his allotted time did Holder say something else. Cruz summarized, again, that he could not simply say no, and he said he thought he was saying no. Now, is Eric Holder stupid? Does he literally not know what he is saying? He clearly did not say no and arguably implied yes. Implying his own stupidity as his defense? That’s Reagan and Iran-Contra level. So he said “take my ‘appropriate’ as no”, which is vague, and would never stand up as a legal statement (it is not even logically correct. He should have said “take my ‘not appropriate’ as no”).
Ultimately, either Holder was playing with weasel words, and attempting to save at the end with further weasel words, or he is sincere is saying that he did not know what he was saying. I credit him with more intelligence than that, but I could be wrong.
And I do think Cruz was too easy on him. When came back at me with “appropriate”, I would have responded, “so if you think there is a judgment to be made about propriety, you must not think there is a constitutional objection that would render such judgment moot, correct?”
Uprated for the last sentence.
translation:
dunno….would you like me to?
a little more chlorine is needed to clear up the gene pool, methinks
Waste of a perfectly good missile.
The real question is, why do is any senator still able to threaten a filibuster to veto a cabinet appointment? Reid told us he had some kind of deal, or some kind of secret weapon. So where is it? Did he just outright lie again? And why is there no interest in finding out?
As to Brennan I don’t much care if he gets the job or not. His record seems marginal. But if asses like Paul can do this to a fairly popular choice, what are they going to do with Cordray, who really is a must-have nominee? And what’s Reid going to do about it?
The Republicans assured him they wouldn’t do that, c.f. Lucy and the football.
I get the distinct feeling this was a “gotcha” question, in which the “gotcha” would follow no matter what answer Holder gave.
Really? Suppose Holder has just answered “No, it would not be Constitutional” the first time he was asked. What would be Cruz’s great gotcha? If he adds to the hypothetical, it would be obvious that he was doing that, so he would lose the point. Cruz question was too to the point to be a gotcha.
Adam Bonin says he was the best he ever debated:
Don’t fall for his bullshit. He’s an expert.
So the defense of the Attorney General of the United States for refusing to answer this question candidly is that he can’t be expected to speak candidly to a skillful debater. The best way not to get tripped up in a debate is to speak simply and candidly, which Holder did not. But really, this is saying Holder is not intellectually up to his job. The AG should be able to express and defend the government’s positions, against anyone. Don’t get me wrong: I think Holder is perfectly up to his job intellectually. I think he is being evasive. But to say, as you do, that he is avoiding the question because Cruz is a good debater, is to say he is not up to the job. This is the big leagues.
I’m talking about you, not Holder.
Nice try. But priscianus said he or she thought Cruz had a gotcha question ready. I suggested there was no such question. But I am not in discussion with Cruz, nor likely to be. Holder was. So if Cruz’s debating skill has relevance, it has to be relevance to how Holder would interact with it. I will have no such opportunity. You’re trying to hide incoherence behind insult.
I’m not trying to insult you. I am pointing out that Ted Cruz is an expert in rhetoric and debate, one of the most talented people in that field in the country, and that you will often find him convincing because of this talent, even though he is ultimately a fraud.
Cruz didn’t convince me of anything. His question is much like the question I would have asked in his place. This was already my concern.
It’s possible to answer questions truthfully, affirmatively and carefully. This is what Holder was doing today. He’s up to his job just fine, thanks.
Answering questions to shifting hypotheticals from Cruz “simply and candidly”? That sounds like you want Holder to give quick answers to those questions without much thought. That would be silly and dangerous. You think Cruz formed his questions “simply and candidly”? No, he was being very careful and meant harm to Holder, and the AG responded appropriately.
Cruz did not shift hypotheticals. He offered one hypothetical, as simple as possible. When Holder objected because the hypothetical did not include reasons the government might want to kill the person, Cruz elaborated with the obvious. But he wasn’t changing the hypothetical; he was spelling out something Holder claimed not to understand.
“Why in the hell would we want to kill that American? That would be stupid and counterproductive” does not equal “we secretly reserve the legal right to kill that American if we’re in the mood.”
It’s odd that you want to turn the first into the second.
If I ask the chief of police whether police have the legal right to shoot someone on sight for wearing gang colors, and he responds “Why would we want to do that. That would be stupid and counterproductive.” that is evading he question. The question of whether it is prohibited, of whether the government can do it, is distinct from that of whether it is a good idea, and treating the first question as the second implies the answer to the first is yes, as, if the answer to the first is no, the second question is moot.
I understand what you claim here.
Yet Holder said “no” in his letter to Paul. Invoking Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as the standard for use of immediate deadly force was intended to show an outlandishly high bar, one which a person responding in good faith would understand as removing all doubt.
Yet Holder said “no” in his answer to Cruz. Yes, he took a while to say it, yes, he said it in the context of a sentence with other words in them, but if you believe Holder would avoid a perjury conviction if it turned out he didn’t really mean “no”, then I believe you are quite wrong.
Yet Holder said “no” again today in response to an additional direct question from Paul’s Senate soliliquy yesterday.
Your denial that is important to make both legal and practical arguments against flawed law enforcement policies is odd. There are people in these United States who believe that, in the name of law enforcement, the government should have much wider latitude to kill people in the United States. It is important to enter into the rational argument as well as the legal one; otherwise, there is a greater chance that the laws will be changed, as they were recently. It’s not all about evasion.
The idea that you would grow MORE suspicious if your Police Chief agreed with you that stupid law enforcement policy is, indeed, stupid- well, you don’t leave our discussion with too many good-faith places to go, particularly since this parallel story wishes to walk us away from the fact that Holder said “no” in the end, regardless of whether the way he said “no” made you feel confident.
And just to be clear, when you compete in debating societies, your position is assigned to you. It could be pro-choice or anti-choice. You have to argue the case, not what you believe. Cruz can argue any point for any purpose, without breaking a sweat.
Cruz’s questions were quite valid whether he was sincere or not and whether he would apply the same questions to a Republican administration or not. And Holder’s answers were BS.
I wonder how you would rate Cruz if he had been assigned the opposite argument.
I’m not “rating Cruz” as a debater. I’m evaluating what he said, so of course, the merits matter. They are the whole point. Professional debate is mile a minute speech; it is not like this, anyway.,
If you think Cruz’ questions can be trusted, you haven’t seen him question others during his brief time in the Senate. Ted doesn’t seek answers as you do; he means to do harm to his political enemies. That’s it.
“If an American citizen on US soil poses no immediate threat, is it constitutional for the government to kill that person with a drone.”
I think the drone bit actually superfluous, and I will give Holder credit for pointing that out at the end, but this is a perfectly fair, straight-forward, and well-expressed question.
I am stupid, because I wonder if Jane isn’t safe from the whims of our executive, am I? Is a Senator?
I tried to imagine a hypothetical event where such a murder wouold be legal, but just couldn’t come up with a noun, a verb and 9-11.
Why is it always about personality? I don’t like the guy either, but this once he asked my question.
I wonder as one who at age 14 witnessed the murder of our president and found the official explanation in the evening paper on our doorstep four hours later.
The question is – what is my citizenship worth? Oh, yeah – we are a nation of laws, which none of us are above.
Yes. You are stupid if you think that Jane Fonda is at risk of being droned.
A good question. Regarding a nation of laws, some of us are more equal under the law than others and Comrade Napoleon is always right, so don’t question his authority to kill anyone he pleases.
As to the chilling effect of all that, I am considering whether or not to press “post” because his minions might just decide to kill even a nobody like me.
What Paul didn’t mention was that Dick Cheney on his own authority as acting President while W was on the run to the SAC hideaway did authorize the military to shoot down the fourth plane, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania.
I like the fact that the talking filibuster is apparently back in style. These questions, as hyperbolically as Rand Paul stated them need to be aired.
Unfortunately, too many people in this country would answer Rand Paul’s hypothetical about Jane Fonda with “Hell yes!” The rest will ask “Jane who?”
The confirmation process shouldn’t be another means of obstructing Presidential appointments, but it should not be a meaningless rubber stamp either. And there are issues about Brennan and his judgment that are worthy of being aired. Unfortunately, the members of the Senate, Republican and Democratic are so locked into this partisan battle that they fail to ask the right questions.
McConnell is hanging Paul out to dry before enough Republicans cross over and vote to confirm. From my perspective this useful idiot has performed a service in showing what a filibuster looks like. It’s all good.
And great entertainment while we are waiting for Boehner to hang his caucus out to dry.
What’s up with that Dick Cheney story, anyway?
in the narrative section of the 9/11 Report, the authors tell us that Dick Cheney authorized a shootdown immediately after a conversation with the President. With him in the Situation Room at the time were Dick Cheney’s wife, Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, and the recording secretary who works in the Situation Room, all three of whom were taking notes about everything that was happening, but none of whom made a single note about there being a conversation in which the President of the United States and the Vice President discussed sending the military to shoot down a plane full of Americans.
I guess they all took a pee break at the same time. Or maybe Dick Cheney and George Bush lied to the commission.
He lied to the commission. They actually pointed it out in a specially boxed segment of the report, but they were extremely polite about it.
My point in including the Dick Cheney story is that he made a decision to shoot down an aircraft full of civiilians only on the information that (1) New York and DC had been attacked by highjacked airliner, (2) the airliner in question had departed from its registered flight path, and (3) on his own initiative. As it turned out the plane crashed (presumably from the actions of the passengers overwhelming hijackers although we cannot be certain until a lot of information is declassified) before the military could carry out that order.
If any of the information that Cheney used not been true and if the military had shot down the plane, it would have been an action violating the posse comitatus law (which hadn’t been fudged by the PATRIOT Act at that time) and it would have killed 44 innocent people.
The targeted killings that the US is carrying out overseas are much less imminent than that situation, which is why the question gets raised about the limits on targeted killings in the US.
But as some have said online, targeted kilings in the US will be carried out by the police and the FBI just like they have in the past century.
The GOP is just a 3 ring circus. This week its Rand Paul, next week its Ted Cruz, Raul Labador and then the Tan Man drinks his way over the tight rope.
Yet Paul is making a good point. That this program is not governed by the rule of law. I actually think he might be doing a good thing here. Yes, some statements are stupid. No, saying that the president is out of bounds by killing Americans ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE – this is NOT a bad point to make.
Wow, great thread, people.
The thing to remember about cranks is that they have more in common with each other than with non-cranks with whom they might appear to share a general political orientation.
“Rand Paul is a racist, homophobic, conspiracy theorist” http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2010/10/5-reasons-rand-paul-is-a-racist-conspiracy-theorist/ …
Boo,
It’s funny — I feel about Brennan the way you felt about Hagel. I don’t care. No, I’ll go further. I’m enjpying watching the wingnuts chew up a company man. As long as the good guys can stay safely out of the cross fire.
Indeed, speaking of eleven-dimensional chess, it just may be that this is a great way to throw Brennan to the wolves. A very handy way of getting rid of people that are imposed on you.