Why Eric Holder Is Awesome, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #317 | @MDWorld
March 11, 2013 Mike Gold 7 Comments
For those who came in late: in protest to the Obama administration’s use of drone strikes, last week Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of Ayn Rand’s minions of zealots, blocked the vote on the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA. He wanted an answer to the question “can the President order drone strikes on American citizens on American soil?” Paul went on to cite examples such as people getting blown up while dining in public places.
Senator Paul blocked the vote by conducting a grand old filibuster – the type where you get up and rant until to get your way or give up. He filled the time with instruction as to the current trends in libertarian philosophies and he emphasized the infallibility of the Constitution. Rand is young and not to be confused with his elderly and even more rabid father, Ron, the failed presidential candidate. The younger Paul lasted 13 hours. That’s quite admirable, as these things go.
My interest in nostalgia is both professional and personal, but if you’re going to invoke the spirit of conservative Republican Jimmy Stewart in the liberal Democratic movie Smith Goes to Washington, your stunt should actually have something to do with the point you’re trying to make. Paul acknowledged he had nothing against Brennan or even President Obama, which I find difficult to believe.
Be that as it may, why take it out on Brennan? Because the CIA is somehow involved in domestic drone usage because, well, because it’s the CIA so they must be involved despite the law that says they can’t be? Paul didn’t say. Perhaps he was confusing the CIA with TMZ, which actually filed for permits to use flying drone cameras to follow celebrities. Shooting pictures of celebrities, shooting traitors to America – perhaps those concepts are easily confused within the Objectivist community.
So Attorney General Eric Holder issued a written response to Senator Paul. Here is the entire text of Holder’s response:
“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 citizen not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”
So, now we know: Americans dining in public are not engaged in combat and, therefore, are not subject to being bombed into the next dimension by a drone attack ordered by the President. So there.
Senator Paul then shut the hell up and his hostage, John Brennan, was voted in 63 to 34 as our new CIA chief.
I like how Attorney General Holder used 44 words in his one-word response. That was eloquent.
And I like how Senator Paul ranted for 13 hours on principle, just to prove a point.
—
That point being, he’s a total dick.Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check the website above for times. Gold also joins MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman, Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Doug Abramson
March 11, 2013 - 7:52 pm
I don’t know how even a dolt like Rand Paul could confuse the CIA with TMZ. Harvey Levin is much more unsavory and ethically challenged.
George Haberberger
March 12, 2013 - 7:01 am
“Paul acknowledged he had nothing against Brennan or even President Obama, which I find difficult to believe.”
Your skepticism may be why you completely discount the fact that Holder did not give his oh-so-eloquent answer the first time Paul asked that simple, but necessary, question.
Would that answers about Fast and Furious were as forthcoming.
Rene
March 12, 2013 - 8:44 am
So, are all Libertarians insane, or is it just my impression?
R. Maheras
March 12, 2013 - 12:21 pm
Hey Mike — So what’s the definition of “engaged in combat.”
Oh, that’s right. There IS no specified definition. It depends on what the meaning of is is.
Scenario: Melvin Al-Muntaqim Kowsnofsky is an avowed terrorist. He has threatened to do bad things online, and reportedly, while attending “Fie on America” meetings with other radicals. In addition, according to the latest intel there’s a 85 percent probability he was involved in previous bad things, where people were hurt or died, or could have been hurt or died (intel is never 100 percent sure of anything so 85 percent is considered a “slam-dunk”). Suddenly, a Hellfire-equipped CIA drone spots Mr. Kowsnofsky getting out of a stolen SUV outside the Mall of America the week before Christmas carrying a suspicious backpack. Senior command authorities have literally three minutes to take him out before he disappears inside the megamall to do lord-knows-what to the blissfully ignorant throngs of shoppers. The order to fire is given, and the drone takes him out in the parking lot.
Is that right or wrong, oh champion of individual rights?
You tell me.
And don’t think such a scenario won’t eventually happen. It most assuredly will.
And why do I have that nagging feeling that if the person ordering the strike is a Republican, it will be unjustified in the eyes of liberals and the media, but if the person ordering the strike is a Democrat, it will be justified?
R. Maheras
March 12, 2013 - 1:08 pm
Addendum: Of course it wouldn’t be a CIA drone, as the CIA isn’t allowed to perform surveillance inside US borders.
Oh, wait… dummy me! That was in the olden days!
I forgot that the CIA is now aiding NYPD (and no doubt other law enforcement agencies) with domestic surveillance programs.
Rene
March 12, 2013 - 2:59 pm
Russ –
And I’m sure Republicans would remain properly horrified if a Conservative president had such powers. 😉
But seriously, I think Liberals would worry about a GOP President using a drone against a Muslim in America. Conservatives would worry about a Liberal President using a drone against a blue-eyed WASP gun-nut that isn’t paying his taxes. They’d probably cheer if the Prez gunned down a few Muslims suspected of terrorist contacts. I mean, they would, if they were able to cheer anything that Obama does.
In any case, I very very very much doubt any American President would use drones in America against someone without a Muslim name, at the least. So the GOP doesn’t need to worry.
Doug Abramson
March 12, 2013 - 7:45 pm
Well Russ,
Since the far left have been complaining about the drone program louder and longer than most of the right has; I say in your scenario the party of the President wouldn’t make a f***ing difference. The people on the right and left that have been against drone strikes since the Bush Administration first experimented with them would continue to rail against them and a section of political opportunists will pile on for political gain. Who they would be would depend on which party this hypothetical president is.
R. Maheras
March 12, 2013 - 8:01 pm
The party comment was an afterthought.
My main point is that Mike was mocking someone who is genuinely concerned about an unprecedented expansion of executive power over American citizens that, in effect, eliminates the judiciary. In short, the executive branch becomes, quite literally, the execution branch — completely bypassing due process.
I understand why this is necessary in a wartime environment, but this is scary new territory domestically, and it should not be treated lightly just because it is a Republican/Libertarian like Paul who is raising the alarm.
If you knew how many times a day drone operators in war zones have to make such life and death calls with imperfect intelligence and a limited window with which to take action, you damn sure would be thinking twice about such things.
Doug Abramson
March 12, 2013 - 8:21 pm
I am ambivalent about armed drone strikes, but since it tends to cut down on civilian casualties and keeps some American and Allied troops out of dangerous situations, I can live with it, but I would be more comfortable if the CIA program was scrapped and turned over to the Defense Department, where slightly better over site exists. I just think that most people’s responses to the drone programs are too personal to peg with party labels.
R. Maheras
March 12, 2013 - 8:41 pm
But what about domestically? That’s what the fillibuster was about. It has nothing to do with drone usage in Afghanistan, Yemen, or anywhere else.
Doug Abramson
March 12, 2013 - 10:42 pm
Domestically is a two-parter for me. I don’t like the idea of domestic drone use, buy not because I think that they would be a Fifth Amendment issue. For the sake of argument, well assume that our spy satellites have never been used domestically; even then, drones don’t invade people’s privacy anymore than existing surveillance from law enforcement aircraft. I personally feel that law enforcement should always have at least one officer observing law breaking in person. Traffic tickets should come from a cop on the street, ground patrols should be coordinated by a live body in an aircraft, not someone sitting in a cubicle.If we do accept domestic drone use,since law enforcement aircraft don’t carry armaments neither should domestic drones. Its a very fine distinction, but its the way I feel. So, I don’t like the idea of domestic law enforcement drones; or if they are used, arming them.
However, since I also don’t see how domestic drones would be illegal, despite my preferences, would it be legal for the government to arm them and use one on a citizen with out a trial? Yes. I don’t like it, but yes; under certain circumstances. If a citizen was in the commission of a violent act of terrorism on domestic soil and an armed drone got to them first, with a clear shot and minimal chance of civilian casualties? You take the shot. It wouldn’t be any different than a cop shooting an armed suspect to protect civilian lives. If a violent act isn’t being committed,then a drone strike would be equal to shooting an unarmed man.
R. Maheras
March 13, 2013 - 5:50 am
Doug — therein lies the rub: In the case of a drone, it is very difficult to make a determination of whether or not an act in progress is actually hostile. The incredible pressure drone operators feel due to the fleeting availability of an action window and the possible gravity of the event unfolding, is magnified immensely as it works its way up the decision chain. In a war zone, the process is imperfect, and innocent people are impacted (literally).
That, alone, is reason enough to be careful with the use of armed drones domestically. Add to the mix we are now talking about US citizens protected by the Constitution, and this is a far different issue than simply one of “law enforcement.” A police office can only fire his/her weapon at a suspect if their lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger. This is hard enough to do when one is face-to-face with a suspect. Trying to make this life and death decision from a drone’s video display — especially under less than ideal conditions, like rain, snow, fog, low light conditions, etc. — is often far harder.
But the bottom line is, in the case of domestic drones strikes, “taking the shot” is a serious, serious Constitutional issue, because it is your government totally and intentionally bypassing due process.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done under extraordinary situations, but I remember clearly when Roe v. Wade was enacted, our self-same government said second-term abortions would only be performed under “extraordinary conditions.” If you thinks today’s 12 percent post-first trimester abortion rate reflects “extraordinary” conditions, then we have an entirely different definition of the word. The same was true for “extraordinary rendition,” the extraordinary usage of waterboarding, etc. The fact is, such things rarely remain in the extraordinary category with the passage of time.
R. Maheras
March 13, 2013 - 11:27 am
By the way — I have no problem at all with unarmed drones flying around domestically. If Google can legally film my house from a satellite or a robo-car, let the cops utilize that technology as well. After all, their houses will get filmed as well.
Doug Abramson
March 13, 2013 - 12:24 pm
Russ,
For a change we are almost in sync on an issue. Just to clarify: While I do think that a drone strike on a citizen, on US soil, would be legal if they were actively committing a violent act of terrorism; I personally want that handled by personnel on the ground, not a remote operator. I think that unarmed drone use domestically is compleatly constitutional. I just feel that an actual officer on site should be required. The same way that I think red light cameras shouldn’t be used. Perfectly legal. It just goes against my sense of “fair play”.
Rene
March 14, 2013 - 2:46 pm
Russ –
I don’t know about abortion, that I see more like a case of an impossibility to punish and regulate something that, deep down, most women want to have the option to do, even the ones that claim to be religious.
As for waterboarding, drones, and the whole mess, unfortunately I don’t see a way to put that genie back in the bottle. None of the parties really want to be the one to do it. The GOP is the party of testosterone and a tough line against terrorism, a Republican President will never scale down executive powers, no matter how much the GOP criticizes a Dem President with the same powers.
A Democrat President also will not do it, because the political cost would be immense if an attack on American soil then happens on his watch. The Dems are perpetually at risk of being seen as “weak on security”. Guys like Rand Paul would butt-rape a Democrat President that scaled down executive powers in such eventuality. It would be Jimmy Carter all over again, times 20.
Neil C.
March 15, 2013 - 7:07 am
Reading about CPAC, etc. it seems to me that the GOP and conservatives worrry more about ‘scaring liberals’ (which they don’t as much as they think they do, I mostly laugh at their ‘tough guy acts’) rather than actually doing something.
Rene
March 15, 2013 - 8:22 am
Yes, I did realize that conservatives seem to feel a great deal of pleasure antagonizing liberals, while liberals just like to smile and carry on as if conservatives were drooling morons.
But I think liberal POLITICIANS are scared of conservative voters.
R. Maheras
March 15, 2013 - 8:28 am
I don’t think Americans should adopt the attitude that it is inevitable that our Constitution will eventually be doomed to a “death by a thousand cuts.”
Why throw in the towel simply because some new technology pops up?
Are we doomed to follow the same path as Rome? Monarchy (under the British) to Democratic republic to dictatorship to oblivion?
Neil C.
March 15, 2013 - 12:46 pm
We have a dictatorship now?
mike Gold
March 15, 2013 - 4:59 pm
Sorry to throw the first pitch and then leave the diamond. My mother died this past Monday, and I left that day for Chicago. She was 97, a good solid run.
With a touch of luck, I’ll have something to say about Argentina next week.
Reg
March 15, 2013 - 8:37 pm
Mike, my deep deep condolences man. To be honest, bro…I’d rather read about her. She raised a man.
George Haberberger
March 16, 2013 - 7:53 pm
Mike, my condolences on your mother’s passing.
Neil C.
March 17, 2013 - 11:21 am
My condolences, Mike.
Whitney
March 17, 2013 - 12:38 pm
Oh Golden Boy…
I am so sorry for your loss…She must have loved having you as a son.
Let us know how you are when you can…w