Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Amerians in America

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    246
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Americans in America



    "The thing is, saying that 'I have some superior, secret knowledge is why I'm allowed to kill Americans without any kind of due process,' isn't good enough for me." - Senator Rand Paul


    Just the other day, Senator Rand Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan for director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Senator Paul did so in order to seek answers to his questions to President Obama, on statements made that indicate the POTUS believes he has the power to use drones to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil, without charge or trial, ie without the due process of law. The comments that gave Senator Paul concern included a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder, and also recent comments from the President during a Google interview. Of course these comments come after the previous Secretary of Defense admitted to assassinating an American citizen without charge or trial.

    This is an extremely important issue, and in my view is the most important issue in all of American history. It should also be of great importance to every person serving in our military today. The trend has been to turn our tools of lethality inward, and I for one have been discussing this trend for some time now. I am glad to see this issue finally discussed at length on Capitol Hill. The entire thirteen hour filibuster and discussion of the issue by Senator Paul from Kentucky, Senator Cruz from Texas, Senator Lee from Utah, and others can be viewed online here. I recommend all Americans, but especially those of us commissioned to wield the tools of lethality in the military, take the time to watch the entire filibuster discussion, and those of us commissioned in the armed service ready ourselves to exercise our own constitutionally required check and balance in defense of the Constitution. In other words, we need to be ready to refuse unlawful orders, should some of our elected leaders fail in their duties to defend our nation's highest law and instead decide to turn America's military against the citizenry that funds it.

    In my view, it logically follows that if the United States government can legally assassinate Americans on foreign soil (by assassinate, I mean killing an American who is not at the time presenting an imminent threat, ie engaging in combat), then the government can also assassinate Americans on U.S. soil here at home. That is logically valid. The reason is because geography has no import in the contract between an American citizen and his or her government. The Constitution both enshrined absolute rights to not be infringed, and created the government of the United States. Therefore, anywhere on the planet the two shall meet (American citizen and government of the United States), the Constitution necessarily applies and legally limits the actions of the United States government. Geography does not matter.

    However, what appears to be lost on Attorney General Holder, John Brennan, Jeh Johnson (before he left the government), and others is that the United States government cannot legally assassinate Americans who are presenting no imminent threat (ie actively engaged in violence). It doesn't matter if in Yemen, or in Seattle, the Constitutional restriction of the Fifth Amendment applies anywhere in the universe where an American citizen and his or her government intersect. The Fifth Amendment's guarantee that the government cannot take life, liberty, or property without the due process of law has no geographic exception. I have previously discussed my understanding of the law, and also touched on the erroneous legal reasoning of Attorney General Holder, John Brennan, and Jeh Johnson.

    During the filibuster, some in the Senate touched on some of these same issues. In essence, what was debated in the Senate the other day was the very existence of America as a free nation, versus changing the government to a monarchy or authoritarian government. That isn't hyperbole. A government that claims the power to kill its own citizens, based on the whim of one government person or a group of persons, without the due process of law that has been the bedrock of justice throughout American history, quite simply cannot be described as the government created by the Constitution. It is not a variation of that government, or that government gone astray, but rather it is a different government entirely, one that is more akin to the government of the Queen of Alice's Wonderland, who twists justice and exclaims "Sentence first! Verdict after!"

    While I encourage all to watch video of the filibuster (including the first twenty-two minutes before Senator Paul adjusts his microphone and thereby improves the audio), I will provide below a few points that I found particularly salient as I watched the thirteen hour Senate debate.

    First, words are weapons. When it comes to those who wish to sidestep the Constitution while avoiding the charge that they are violating the law, the law must be twisted and that means that words must be destroyed. This is a tactic we have seen used throughout American history, and certainly over the last decade. This tactic is usually employed by government lawyers who sadly use what legitimacy their profession offers, to muddle and "make a case" for "their client." Unfortunately, they make a case using a lack of integrity, and they misdiagnose their client by ignoring the American people who pay their bills, and instead act as propagandists for their immediate supervisors who wish to break the law. Typically a profession is held to a higher standard than a regular job, in part because of a required code of ethics, yet the legal profession is filled with the immoral who provide legitimacy to government law breaking just as priests used to provide legitimacy to Kings. In this recent discussion, Senator Lee from Utah diagnoses the destruction of language in the leaked Department of Justice (DOJ) white paper, seizing on its dishonest destruction of the term "imminent" to describe an imminent threat. By destroying the term imminent threat, the white paper essentially gives cart blanche to the government killing any American it wants, for whatever reason it wants, without that person actually having to pose an imminent threat or any real threat at all. As Senator Lee says at one point, the white paper's explanation of "imminent threat" is like a peanut-butter jelly sandwich without the peanut-butter or jelly, there is nothing there. I should note that Senator Lee is a lawyer, and a former Supreme Court law clerk for Justice Alito. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, is also a former law clerk for former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist. For those not familiar with the legal community, clerking for a justice is an extremely serious legal credential and we are fortunate to have such amazing legal minds serving in our Senate.

    Senator Wyden spoke during the filibuster, and praised John Brennan for saying that the CIA does not operate in the United States because it does not have the authority. Remembering that words are weapons, I would caution all who hear or read those words from Brennan to ask themselves what Mr. Brennan means by "authority." Does he mean he doesn't have the authority because the Constitution does not provide it? Or does he simply mean that the President has not given him the authority? While Senator Paul takes Brennan at his word, I would remind all that words are weapons and they are often provided to create an illusion for those who hear them.

    Second, Senator Paul repeatedly took issue with the claim that assassination of Americans outside the United States was legal if capture was not feasible. The senator pointed out that the statement on feasibility, seemed to imply that killing an American was legal if capture was inconvenient. I share the senator's concern and think it is important to remember that if we can kill an American, we can capture him. Just as we invaded an entire country, and lost the lives of service members, in order to capture and try Manuel Noriega. Noriega was, of course, not an American citizen and today he sits in prison having been afforded due process of law.

    Third, we in the military should understand that a targeting process is nowhere even close to the due process required by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Several guys in the executive branch asking themselves if they should kill an American, is not a trial and a jury of peers. Senator Paul touches on this disparity and overemphasis of "targeting process" as if it holds some value in exchange for due process. Senator Lee does a good job explaining the protections afforded to all citizens, wherever they may be located, from the government. Senator Barrasso of Wyoming also sheds light on many questions concerning the targeting "process," asking for example, the number of individuals that have ultimately not been placed on the kill list during secret deliberations due to objections.

    Fourth, Senator Paul touches on what I would term "picking battles." He provides a good reminder of what it means to be a public servant, and explains that while we should be civil, we must still must be principled. As public servants we are either serving the public, or we are providing a disservice to them. When we refuse to stand up for those who pay us to do a job for them, out of our self interest or cowardice, we do a disservice to Americans.

    Lastly, for those of us in the military, we need to understand that assassinating an American with a drone is no different than pulling out your weapon in a Wal-Mart and shooting a person while they browse the frozen food section. Senator Moran makes this point effectively. It is easy to detach ourselves from behind a console while looking at infared signatures, but it is important that our officership and professionalism not be put on a shelf because we might feel hidden and anonymous while working from a trailer anywhere in the world.

    For those who object to the term "assassination," Senator Cruz of Texas disagrees with you, as do I.

    Ultimately, we in the military are the final check and balance when it comes to using the military against Americans. We never hear ourselves referred to in that manner, but the Constitution is clear when it requires military officers and justices of the Supreme Court, to swear to support the Constitution. Our actions must be lawful. If those above us break the law while pretending their orders to be lawful, we must refuse. At our own peril. Nobody said this job would be easy, and character and courage isn't relegated to the realm of recruiting posters only.

    It should also be noted that, as a result of the filibuster, the Attorney General sent a letter of response to Senator Paul saying that the President does not have the authority to kill an American on U.S. soil with a drone. It should be remembered, however, that while it is rare for a President to discount and disagree with his Attorney General on a legal matter, and act on his own legal understanding rather than that of his top legal advisers, it has been done before. In fact, President Obama disagreed with Mr. Holder and acted outside the council of his top lawyers with regards to actions in Libya.

    I recommend all those serving today, who are not ready to do right by their nation, find a new job. America has gone down the rabbit hole. We are in the business of risking ourselves for our country, for Americans, and we must be ready to do the right thing. If you do right in the face of wrong, it won't always turn out in your favor, but sometimes it will. Regardless, as military professionals who took an oath to defend the Constitution, it is time we take a deep hard look at ourselves and ask ourselves if our country truly means something to us. Our combat time means nothing, and a wing award and promotion two-below means even less. The typical ways we judge our success in the military are child's play metrics in our serious world, with the very serious threats to our nation. Few are tested these days, but unfortunately that will most definitely change. We must be ready to do right for America, by refusing to do wrong, if and when the time comes, and when we are truly tested as real men were tested in generations past.
    COURAGE!

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Well, you aren't going to like this answer either, but yes [I would follow an unlawful order to round up innocent Americans by force and throw them into concentration camps]. ...I probably would have obeyed the order for self preservation purposes.

  2. #2
    Senior Member BOSS302's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Highlands
    Posts
    801
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Americans in America

    Quote Originally Posted by PickYourBattles View Post
    Keep propping up that straw man. I know you were wounded jumping into combat and all (on Xbox), so it's tough for you to realize the statement that many cops are bad <> the statement that all cops...
    Quote Originally Posted by PickYourBattles View Post
    You are a moron, among morons.
    Quote Originally Posted by PickYourBattles View Post
    I saw your post and thought about the poser I put on his ass last weekend.
    Quote Originally Posted by PickYourBattles View Post
    For most people it's fight or flight, that's correct. For him, the options are flight or flight. Which is why I consistently refer to flight or flight for our friend Sally.
    Quote Originally Posted by PickYourBattles View Post
    I'm sure she'd take one look at you, size you up, and ask if you wanted to go with her to get a mani and a pedi.
    Quote Originally Posted by PickYourBattles View Post
    If you don't like key pieces of your opinion mentioned, then don't express those opinions. You're like a NAMBLA supporter online who gets pissed when he's made fun of for wanting to touch Timmy
    Quote Originally Posted by PickYourBattles View Post
    Cute. You pay less than a penny of the money you get from the taxpayer each month, so you think that means you being a giant pussy is perfectly fine. Got ya.

    . .

  3. #3
    FLAPS
    Guest

    Re: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Amerians in America

    Lincoln never recognized the Confederate states as a separate country, but didn't he order Union troops to kill American citizens (90,000+) ON American soil?

    Confederate troops (American citizens) posed a threat to National Security, so they were killed under Presidential orders. Tens of thousands of Confederates were killed in the Civil War, yet when we kill a handful of badguys overseas with an RPA there's an uproar.

    The filibuster was nothing more than political drama for the TV viewers.

  4. #4
    Senior Member KellyinAvon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    470
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Amerians in America

    President Lincoln (along with congress) suspended Habeas corpus. Per Cornell's Legal Information Institute: The sources of habeas corpus can be found in the Constitution, statutory law, and case law. The Suspension Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2), states: “The Privileges of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion of Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    Lincoln was preserving the Union. He also deported people who were causing problems in the north.

    We lost 50,000 at Gettysburg so it's ok to smoke Americans on American soil with military hardware being controlled by civil authority? That logic would be be closer to the state trooper unholstering the .40 S&W (that's .40 caliber Smith and Wesson, Bob) Glock and putting 2 rounds in the head of a suspect since it's ok to use UAVs.
    This calls for a delicate blend of psychology and extreme violence. Vyvyan, The Young Ones

  5. #5
    Senior Member Jamethon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Amerians in America

    Because F-16s are used for speed enforcement and B-52s are used to crush meth houses. Jesus Christ, people, you act like someone just figured out that a gun can also be used to kill an innocent person.

    I don't see police lasing in a strafe run from an A-10 for red light runners.
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. -Wayne Gretzky"
    -Michael Scott

  6. #6
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)

    Re: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Amerians in America

    Is refusing the order to kill an American citizen enough? Is it not our responsibility (as stated in our oath) to DEFEND those citizens who are not given due process? I think it is.

    I don't think the sky is falling, as some do. I do, however, see the attempt to take some rights away. Are you willing to stand up against those taking those rights away (if it comes to that) or are you just going to refuse the order to take part,then go on your merry way?

    "Courage".

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Debt Star
    Posts
    132
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Amerians in America

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Is refusing the order to kill an American citizen enough? Is it not our responsibility (as stated in our oath) to DEFEND those citizens who are not given due process? I think it is.

    I don't think the sky is falling, as some do. I do, however, see the attempt to take some rights away. Are you willing to stand up against those taking those rights away (if it comes to that) or are you just going to refuse the order to take part,then go on your merry way?

    "Courage".

    And we all know the answer to that one.


    As long as we have our Wifi, our Starbucks, our iPhones, and any other creature comfort without any significant breaks, take our freedoms, please. It's been going on for years, yet it appears most of us don't care.

  8. #8
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)

    Re: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Amerians in America

    Quote Originally Posted by Shove_your_stupid_meeting View Post
    And we all know the answer to that one.
    Indeed we do.


    As long as we have our Wifi, our Starbucks, our iPhones, and any other creature comfort without any significant breaks, take our freedoms, please. It's been going on for years, yet it appears most of us don't care.
    I am curious, though. One of the main issues in this is the discussion about a guy who is in a photo SITTING NEXT TO Osama Bin Laden. In my opinion that guy is an enemy combatant. But maybe that's just me.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    246
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Amerians in America

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    I am curious, though. One of the main issues in this is the discussion about a guy who is in a photo SITTING NEXT TO Osama Bin Laden. In my opinion that guy is an enemy combatant. But maybe that's just me.
    No, I don't think it's just you. If a guy is in a photo with our enemy, that guy must be an enemy combatant. I think your logic is brilliant.

    COURAGE!

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Well, you aren't going to like this answer either, but yes [I would follow an unlawful order to round up innocent Americans by force and throw them into concentration camps]. ...I probably would have obeyed the order for self preservation purposes.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Re: What We Should Learn From the Filibuster - Killing Amerians in America

    “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?’” wrote Holder. “The answer to that question is no.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...us-filibuster/

    Thanks for the political grandstanding Rand Paul.
    “We will kill Bin Laden. We will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
    - Barack Obama, Oct 2008.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •