Libby’s Political Stew: Drones, Rand Paul, Brennan, Jane Fonda (3-9-13)

Rand Paul’s Message to Obama: Don’t Drone Me Broby Medea Benjamin

[Benjamin comments on how Rand Paul brought up the question that if drones had existed back in the tumultuous anti-Vietnam War 60’s and 70’s, would Jane Fonda and students at Kent State college have been droned or threatened with droning for treason with their protests? He warns that the threshold of defining the enemy may become so lowered that “free speech and assembly” could become regarded as dangerous insurgency.]

Paul said that the U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil was an affront to the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans.

“Is objecting to your government or objecting to the policies of your government sympathizing with the enemy?” Paul asked, invoking the case of Jane Fonda. “No one will ever forget Jane Fonda swiveling around in North Vietnamese armored guns, and it was despicable,” he said. “And it’s one thing if you’re going to try her for treason, but are you just going to drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?”

Paul also suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of Americans who could have been considered enemy sympathizers. “Are you going to drop a missile on Kent State?,” he asked.

------------------------------

US Senate approves John Brennan, tied to torture and drone assassination, as CIA director
By David Walsh

[David Walsh also brings up the possibility of POLITICAL OPPONENTS being droned]

On Wednesday Paul carried out a 13-hour filibuster, which blocked Brennan’s confirmation vote, insisting on a response from the attorney general as to whether government officials believed they had had the right to kill American citizens without due process.

During his filibuster, Paul raised the explosive issue of whether the Obama administration considered it had the authority to launch drone strikes on political opponents, pointing to the anti-Vietnam War protest movement as an example. The Kentucky Republican asked at one point, “Is objection to the policy of your government sympathizing with the enemy? … Are you just going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?”, referring to the actress who opposed American imperialist intervention in Southeast Asia during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

snip

[Walsh also asks why we should have any confidence in Holder’s and Obama’s reassurance to Americans not to drone non-combatant Americans on U.S. soil, considering the nature of their murderous drone program. Every American and every human being deserves due process rights. Walsh asks are political enemies worthy targets of being droned by this administration? He suspects that is coming.]

Is there any reason to have the slightest confidence in Holder’s supposed change of heart? The denial comes from an administration carrying out illegal and murderous daily drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and elsewhere, which have already killed US citizens, on the basis of infamous “kill lists.” The Obama government, moreover, has maintained the institutionalized torture in Guantanamo Bay and relentlessly attempted to destroy Bradley Manning. No one should doubt its willingness and capacity to launch attacks, pre-emptive or otherwise, on political opposition within the United States.

In any event, the phrase “engaged in combat” is elastic enough, from the point of view of the American establishment, to include mass protest, political strikes and efforts to create new, more democratic organs of political power. Moreover, the US military regularly categorizes as “combatants” anyone it kills, deliberately or accidentally, in air or drone strikes. Will the Pentagon stop telling lies at the borders of the United States?

snip

[John McCain asserted that the filibuster was not helpful to Americans. That Americans were being encouraged to fear their government. DUH!!!!!]

Paul’s reference to the possible murder of Jane Fonda elicited angry and anxious comments from Graham and Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, both of whom have close associations with the military and intelligence apparatus.

McCain attacked Rand Paul for his “rant,” adding: “I don’t think what happened yesterday was helpful to the American people.” According to the Associated Press, McCain “derided that notion of an attack against the actress [Fonda] and argued that Paul was unnecessarily making Americans fear that their government poses a danger.”

The Arizona senator continued, “To somehow allege or infer that the president of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda or somebody who disagrees with the policies is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous.” In fact, Holder’s letter and the ensuing discussions make crystal clear that such things are already being discussed by the White House, military and CIA.

snip

[Walsh concludes that Paul ultimately wimped out by accepting the reply from Holder that the US president has the right to order an assassination of anyone, anywhere, except for US citizens not engaged in combat according to Obama’s judgment, imperial thumb up or thumb down over life and death of an American citizen.]

Paul, for his part, once he received the terse reply from the attorney general and after the scolding from McCain and Graham, packed up his tent and described himself as satisfied and “victorious.” Ridiculously, he told the media, “I’m quite happy with the answer [i.e., Holder’s letter] …Through the advise and consent process, I’ve got an important answer.”

That US senators are openly discussing the assassination of left-wing political opponents is absolutely extraordinary. This, along with the bipartisan support for Obama, the drone program and Brennan’s nomination, are a further dire warning about the state of political affairs in the US, increasingly a democracy in name only.

----------

The 3 Real Problems With Drone Strikes
by Cenk Uygur

[Cenk Uygur takes a hard look at the reckless and secretive drone assassination program in which the executive branch assumes the right to kill without producing a shred of evidence that it was warranted.]

1. We have used drones to execute U.S. civilians without a trial. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, the government seems to be indicating he was a really important operational leader for al-Qaeda. Their evidence for that -- nothing. At least nothing they have presented to the public or any other branch of government. The old saying is that you could indict a ham sandwich, but apparently they couldn't indict Awlaki.

Does that mean our government couldn't produce any evidence at all on this supposed terrorist mastermind, or has such disdain for any other branch of government that they think it's beneath them to show a shred of evidence to a court before they order the execution of a U.S. citizen?

In the case of the other two U.S. citizens who were killed, including Awlaki's 16 year-old son who was struck in another bombing, the government refuses to say whether they meant to kill those citizens or if it was an accident. Shouldn't we at least know if assassinations of U.S. citizens are done on purpose or accidentally (by the all-knowing, all-wise executive branch)?

snip

[Cenk explains the vile nature of the “signature strikes” in which hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed.]

2. Most of the drone strikes are signature strikes where we have no idea who we're killing. Really, you're in favor of this? This is so outlandishly immoral that it seems unbelievable. But the New York Times, among many other outlets, has confirmed that in fact we are dropping bombs from drones based on signature activity down below without having any idea who we are killing specifically.

This is why we sometimes bomb weddings. People in Afghanistan and Pakistan often bring weapons to weddings and they fire the guns in the air to celebrate. We see the "signature" of terrorists because there are many guns in the area and obliterate the entire wedding party. If you're comfortable with this, there's some chance you're a monster.

[Cenk explains the vile nature of the DOUBLE TAP “signature strikes” in which first responders become the second wave of drone targets.]

3. We often do double taps where we kill first-responders and the people trying to help the wounded. If you weren't a monster for agreeing with the above strategy, you certainly are if you agree with this one. Plus, a war criminal. This is one of the biggest war crimes there is. The other people who use this strategy often: al-Qaeda.

So, now do you really support these policies? Of course not, the great majority of Americans have no idea what we're doing with these drones. They think we're only targeting high level terrorists. In reality, only 2 percent of the strikes have hit high level al-Qaeda figures. That's why it's so important to shine a light on this issue.

----------

Obama Must Reveal Legal Memos on His Administration's Drone Killing Program
by Kade Crockford

[Crockford brings up the Americans who have already been assassinated by the Obama drone program and the lack of legal or moral justification offered by Obama. She quotes Rand Paul’s exploration of these deaths.]

Paul's concerns appear to be driven by fears that President Obama (or a future administration) would deploy lethal force in non-emergency situations in the United States. But Paul also hammered the administration on another part of the "targeted" killing debate: the controversial killings that the executive branch refuses to legally or morally justify before the public, among them the strike against a US teenager, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. Of his death, Paul said:

"There was a man named al-Awlaki. He was a bad guy, by all evidence available to the public that I've read, he was treasonous. I have no sympathy for his death. I still would have tried him in a federal court for treason and I think you could have [had him] executed. But his son was 16 years old, had missed his dad, gone for two years. His son sneaks out of the house and goes to Yemen. His son is then killed by a drone strike. They won't tell us if he was targeted. Suspect, since there were other people in the group, about 20 people killed, that they were targeting someone else. I don't know that. I don't have inside information on that. But I suspect that.

"But here's the real problem: when [Robert Gibbs] was asked about al-Awlaki's son, you know what his response was? This I find particularly callous and particularly troubling. The president's [aide's] response to the killing of al-Awlaki's son, he said he should have chosen a more responsible father.

"You know, it's kind of hard to choose who your parents are. That's sort of like saying to someone whose father is a thief or a murderer or a rapist, which is obviously a bad thing, but does that mean it's OK to kill their children? Think of the standard we would have if our standard for killing people overseas is, you should have chosen a more responsible parent." [My emphasis]

[Paul on the “signature strikes”]

Paul also railed against the Obama administration's use of so-called "signature strikes":

"We don't have to know what your name is, who you are, who you're with. If you're in a line of traffic and we think you're going from talking to bad people to talking to other bad people, we'll kill you …

"The Wall Street Journal says the bulk of the attacks in Pakistan have been signature attacks, meaning: nobody named and nobody specifically identified, and that civilians aren't really counted because anybody, any male between the age of 16 and 50, is a combatant unless otherwise proven.

"But if those are the standards, I think we need to be alarmed."

Senator Paul stressed that his concerns were not partisan in nature. The administration wants us to "just trust them", Paul said, but "it's not really about them … It is about the law."

snip

[Crockford is disgusted with the senate not getting answers from the administration and then confirming Brennan anyway.]

The Senate faced a key test Thursday on whether it would exercise its constitutional role as a check on the power of the presidency. It failed that test by voting to confirm Brennan's nomination by a vote of 63-34.

-----------------

Cliffs Notes for the Filibuster: Rand Paul in His Own Words
By Conor Friedersdorf

[Friedersdorf cites and categorizes some of Rand Paul’s most compelling arguments during his 13-hour filibuster on Tuesday.]

The problem with a War on Terrorism unbound by geography:

"Alarm bells should go off when people tell you that the battlefield's in America. Why? Because when the battlefield's in America, we don't have due process. What they're talking about is they want the laws of war. They call it the laws of war. Another way to put it is to call it martial law. That's what they want in the United States when they say the battlefield is here... When people tell you that America is a battlefield, when they tell you that the battlefield is here, realize what they are telling you. They are telling you your Bill of Rights don't apply, because in the battlefield, you really don't have due process, and I'm not arguing for that. I'm not arguing for some kind of silly rules for soldiers to ask Miranda rights and do all this. War is war. War is hell. But we can't have perpetual war. We can't have war that has no temporal limits, and we can't then have war that is a part of our daily life in our country, that we're going to say from now on in our country you really don't have the protections of the bill of rights. So I think it's -- it's incredibly important. And we have been kind of blase about this whole drone strike program, and it should come home to where we can really think about it because that's what they are asking to do."

The bipartisan nature of his effort:

snip

"Certain things rise above partisanship. And I think your right to be secure in your person, the right to be secure in your liberty, the right to be tried by a jury of your peers -- these are things that are so important and rise to such a level that we shouldn't give up on them easily. And I don't see this battle as a partisan battle at all of the I don't see this as Republicans versus Democrats.

Why isn't it sufficient process for the executive branch to determine that someone is a terrorist?

"There has been discussion in our country about whether even the courts can sometimes make mistakes. Some states have gotten rid of the death penalty because they have made mistakes and through their DNA testing found that they sometimes convicted the wrong person. Can you imagine with all the checks and balances of our court system, which I think is the best in the entire world, with attorneys on both sides, whether you can afford one or not, there is argument back and forth and you have these procedural protections and you can appeal, and sometimes you can still get it wrong. If we can get it wrong in the best system in the world, do you think one politician might get it wrong? But you will a never know because nobody is told who is going to be killed. It is a secret list. So how do you protest? How do you say, I'm innocent? How do you say, yes, I email with my cousin who lives in the Middle East, and I didn't know he was involved in that? Do you not get a chance to explain yourself in a court of law before you get a hellfire missile dropped on your head? So I think that really, it just amazes me that people are so willing and eager to throw out the bill of rights and just say, oh, that's fine. You know, terrorists are a big threat to us. And, you know, I am a so fearful that they will attack me that I'm willing to give up my rights, I'm willing to give up on the bill of rights? I think we give up too easily."

Why he is disappointed in his colleagues:

"If there were an ounce of courage in this body, I would be joined by many other senators saying that they will not tolerate this, that we will come together today in bipartisan fashion and tell the president, tell any president that no president will ever have the authority to kill Americans without a trial.

"There was, at one point in time in our history, a pride among the Senate and a pride among the Congress that said these are our powers and we're not giving them up. There were people on both sides of the aisle who would stand firm and say this is not a power I'm willing to relinquish.

"This is not something that is good for the country. And by relinquishing the power of Congress, we relinquish something very fundamental to our republic, which is the checks and balances that we should have checks and balances to help and try to prevent one body or one part of the three parts of government from obtaining too much power. And so there was a time when we have tried to keep that power. Unfortunately, the bipartisanship that we have now, which many in the media fail to understand, they see us not getting along on taxes and on spending, but they fail to understand that on something very important, on whether or not an individual has a right to a trial by jury, whether an individual has the right to not be detained indefinitely, that there is quite a bit of bipartisanship.

"Usually in the wrong direction."

[cross-posted at open salon]