“Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal”
Because due process, naturally, is intended only for captured enemy combatants — Islamist terrorists, if I may be so gauche as to recall an outlawed descriptor for those who have as their stated mission to bring down the Great Satan, and all its hellish minions — not for colonialist pigs and fat, capitalist oppressors who live in a country that our new Secretary of Defense agrees is the world’s bully, and that our new Secretary of State ran down before a Senate committee many years ago as a bunch of torturers and baby murderers, the philosophical and military heirs to Genghis Khan.
Welcome to Ameritopia, the fascist wetdream of the progressive orthodoxy that has now insinuated itself fully into the very heights of power.
Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil, he wrote in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
“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,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
Paul condemned the idea. “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening – it is an affront the Constitutional due process rights of all Americans,” he said in a statement.
Holder noted that Paul’s question was “entirely hypothetical [and] unlikely to occur,” but cited the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as the type of incidents that might provoke such a response.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, an attorney and Judiciary Committee member, told The Washington Examiner last month that the drone policy so far outlined by the administration is too vague.
“That has the potential to swallow the rule,” Lee said after the drone program white paper was leaked. “If you’re going to regard somebody as presenting an imminent threat of an attack on the U.S. simply because you have concluded that they are an ‘operational leader’ or they are involved in planning an attack in one way or another, you find yourself giving way to much discretion to the government.”
Lee said that the White House should release the formal legal analysis underpinning the drone program. “We know that in some instances where the government has released its legal analysis, it gets it wrong,” he said.
Look, I can see extraordinary circumstances arising in which an imminent attack, discovered at the very last instant, could only be thwarted by one means — that of a drone strike — as being something we shouldn’t take off the table as a matter of Constitutional debate: after all, the Constitution, as has been noted time and again, is not a suicide pact.
However, I’d want any such potential hypothetical spelled out specifically and any policy constrained to that very singular use — with absolutely nothing left vague or open to reinterpretation or expansion. That is, it must come attached with all its legislative history and an agreement that the courts have no latitude beyond that legislative history to do anything other than, if they see fit, strike down the law as unconstitutional.
What’s troubling is that it took the badgering of certain TEA Party conservatives in the Senate, along with pressure from libertarian groups, to finally force this concession out of an Administration that was prepared to act in unusual circumstances in the way it saw fit, without any open discussion at all on the matter.
This is beyond disturbing. It is a visible symptom of the authoritarian disease that has overtaken the federal government — particularly, the Justice Department and the intelligence agencies — under this Administration. From Fast and Furious (and its offshoots) to the potential that we were using ambassadors to run guns to rebels to the mission creep of the EPA (who is maneuvering itself into de facto control of industrial policy) to assaults on the first, second, fourth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments, to the attacks on our energy sector and border security through law, we have watched as piece by piece the progressives have worked to remove Constitutional safeguards, weaken individual autonomy, and attack the private sector in order to destroy the middle class and expand the influence of centralized government.
And we watch all this knowing that the feckless GOP leadership either doesn’t have the will to stop any of this, or else they’re secretly okay with such an expansion, being themselves political animals who, even as a (Potemkin) “opposition party,” will still enjoy the spoils and the increased power — and will likely themselves some day, as a matter of statistical certainty and electoral inevitability, regain control for a brief time over the whole lucrative apparatus.
But then, to even speculate on such things marks one as a “conspiracy theorist” — akin to the “black helicopter” crowd — who Karl Rove and the nuanced pragmatists are seeking to relegate to the fringes so that they can reinvent themselves as “conservatives”, not by adopting and defending conservative principles, but rather by usurping the label and moving the entirety of national politics leftward as a result.
Which, go team!
Sorry. No more. The next time we have the deadrody’s of the world showing up here to excoriate us for not showing a unified front, I will invite such a creature to blow me.
The time has come. And it must be done.