WASHINGTON, March 7 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today issued the following statement on his vote not to confirm John Brennan to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency:
“While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans. With regard to the use of drones and other methods employed by the Central Intelligence Agency, I am not convinced that Mr. Brennan is adequately sensitive to the important balancing act required to make protecting our civil liberties an integral part of ensuring our national security.”
Contact: Michael Briggs (202) 224-5141
Thank you!
I feel well-represented by this vote and statement.
Rumor has it that Senator Leahy was on the right (IMHO) side of this one as well. Anyone happen to know if that’s true?
Seconded
Leahy voted no as well, so that’s both of our senators. My first thought when I read this was the same as yours, Nan — thank you!
I was also impressed by Rand Paul’s filibuster.
Filibuster
Yes – it made me feel our political system isn’t completely broken!
Although it sure would have been nice to see a few ‘progressives’ backing him up!
filibiuster
Yes it would, but unfortunately, unlike Rand Paul, they stay true to partisan politics.
Rand Paul's Filibuster
Rand Paul’s filibuster was a self-serving grab for attention and press. If he were so concerned about the rights of citizens he would be taking some very different stances on some other issues. This was just about attention getting in preparation for a run for President. Don’t buy into the PR. He just stuck his finger up into the wind and found an easy target to get some press and talk going about himself.
Wow
“If he were so concerned about the rights of citizens he would be taking some very different stances on some other issues.”
“Don’t buy into the PR.”
No offense but I perceive the first as an ad hominem statement, and the second as somewhat offensive given the amount of time I have spent informing myself on the issue Rand Paul was filibustering.
Whether the President of the United States has the power to murder a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil with ZERO due process is a discussion I believe is important that we have. Rosa, it would be great to hear your opinion on the substantive matters at hand.
Well I didn't mean to offend
Well I didn’t mean to offend you personally. Perhaps since you are so knowledgeable about the issue you could enlighten me as to where and when there was ever any discussion about the US using drones to murder US citizens with ZERO due process that prompted Rand Paul asking the question? Why did Mr. Paul feel obligated to ask the question and what was in Eric Holder’s reply that prompted the filibuster. Maybe I missed something somewhere.
As for ad hominem attacks I think Mr. Paul’s stands on citizens rights in other areas is very pertinent to the question of his sincerity.
hmmm....
So you made your previous comments about Rand Paul’s filibuster without taking a single minute to see why Bernie Sanders made the statement he did or why he voted against Brennan’s appointment (the topic of this iBratt strand)???
For anyone genuinely interested in the issues involved, I recommend this blogpost and several of the links included within:
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/03/10/18-usc-1119-foreign-murder-and-obama-targeted-kill-white-paper/#more-33184
No. I actually know why
No. I actually know why Bernie Sanders made the statement he did but that has nothing to do with why Rand Paul made the statements he did or filibustered the appointment. Don’t confuse Bernie Sanders with Rand Paul.
The question is do you know what Rand Paul’s stand is on drones used on the border or drones used overseas? I think it might behoove you to find out.
I’ll address your emptywheel link later. Actually I’m quite aware of the information within it but don’t have time to comment.
Meanwhile why don’t you find out what Rand Paul thinks about using drones on the border or overseas. You might find it rather enlightening.
Actually I really would like
Actually I really would like to see a response to my previous question. What exactly was it that caused Rand Paul to filibuster in your opinion. And what was it about the Attorney General’s response that was in error, in Paul’s opinion as far as you know?
I know the link is about Bernie but all I saw in response was this praise of Rand Paul. So I’d like to know why. And as I said I’d like to know if anyone is aware of what he really thinks about drones. It might give you pause.
Local WSJ employee?
It’s apparent that Rosa works for the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14733-wall-street-journal-attacks-rand-paul-filibuster
Either way I find it hard to believe that there could actually be such a staunch Obama supporter here on ibratt, that they would be willing to look the other way at this very unconstitutional drone policy.
Just exactly where did I say I support the present drone policy
Do not confuse a statement regarding Rand Paul’s hypocritical filibuster with support of drone policies.
And Mike, before you start branding something unconstitutional you should brush up on the Constitutional arguments surrounding drone policy. I’m amused by all those who are so quick to state that something is unconstitutional because they THINK it is so. Or should be so. And just because you think something should be so doesn’t make it so.
The founders designed the Constitution so it would be a flexible document and with this new technology and new “non-hot field of combat” it is time for another look at how we define enemies and combat. With this new situation we will have some confusion as to what is and isn’t constitutional until all the legal arguments are heard and decided upon. And there are strong arguments pro and con.
For the Record, Rand Paul's
For the Record, Rand Paul’s stance on drones is the following:
He is publicly on record stating that he thinks that using unarmed drones to monitor the southern border with Mexico is a good idea
He is also publicly on record (Rush Limbaugh on-air interview for one) stating that he supports armed drone strikes outside US borders
This is why I find his filibuster a fine example of hypocritical grandstanding. As a blogger on AlterNet put it, he’s fine with drone strikes against brown people, it’s only the white US citizens he’s worried about.
Rand Paul has a very, in my opinion, unsatisfying record on a lot of human rights issues.
I agree with Nan Stefanik that there needs to be a discussion about this new technology and the whether or not it should or shouldn’t be used and when and where. But that debate should be held by those with a much greater sense of gravitas than Rand Paul. His filibuster was self-serving and made no sense at all considering that he thinks it’s just fine to lob armed drones into other countries as long as you’re striking at Muslims or Mexicans. Well in all fairness, he just wants armed drones floating over the Mexican border.
That’s why I made the statement I did. I think a lot of people are buying into his grandstanding PR without knowing what he’s on record as in regard to drones.
And by the way, I think Rand
And by the way, I think Rand Paul is playing a lot of people. He knows da*(n well that many are defending him, assuming that his frivolous question about strikes in the US on citizens sitting in coffee shops was a declaration against all drone usage. It wasn’t, he’s happy not to clear the record and because so many of us just read what we find appealing to our own sensibilities on the internet there’s an apparent assumption that he is something he isn’t.
Actually, as noted in my
Actually, as noted in my previous comment, my interest and concern has to do with extra-legal murder, not the particular weapon used. And I suspect Bernie’s use of the clause “by drone and other methods” reflects similar concern.
In any case, please do not confuse support for a filibuster that served to get a lot of people to focus on the fact that President Obama personally makes kill decisions with blanket support for the positions of Rand Paul. I don’t tend to think in all-nothing, black-white, yes-no or partisan terms and will always be grateful that Paul read the writings of my fave civil rights bloggers into the Congressional Record so that the Obama Administration’s shameful behavior in this regard is well-documented.
For the record, I’m personally not anti-drone – I actually think the use of unmanned aircraft makes sense for fire-fighting, lost-person searches, and maybe even border patrol. Of course, there are privacy issues to be addressed, as is the case with many new technologies.
It’s living in a nation with a policy of murdering people without due process that keeps me up at night. IMHO history will not treat President Obama kindly.
Nan in some ways we may be in
Nan
In some ways we may be in agreement more than not. However while I like Marci aka emptywheels blog she is not always infallible. Following is the NY Times article she references in links to your cite: http://www.nytimes.com/…/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html
She says “And yet, without presenting any evidence, or sourcing the judgment, the article claims that the white paper has been misunderstood and sown confusion.”
What the Times really says is that in the later release of the white paper Anwar al-Alwaki’s name was removed giving the impression that the paper was a general statement on targeted strikes and that this led to the misleading assumption that the paper was about general policy when it was, in fact, about one person, al-Walaki.
She also tries to take credit for the second rewrite of the white paper when it is clearly stated in the Times that it was a legal blog that led to a second relook at the points made. I doubt the writers of the White Paper would have stated “legal blog” if it weren’t true. So empty wheels while a good blog has it’s own agenda also.
Having read the original and the second White Papers sourced in the Times I think “murdering people without due process” may be true as far as you’re concerned but it also might be constitution and not under loss of due process. Which is why I think there needs to be a debate but I’d rather see someone with a different stance and higher sense of purpose than Paul taking up the discussion.
There’s a strong argument as well as case history dating back to Daniel Webster and the Carolina affair in 1783 that makes support the argument that these strikes are constitutional. That doesn’t make them wrong or right, immoral or not, murder or self-defense, but they may be constitutionally allowed. One point is that while US citizens are allowed due process, it is stated quite clearly in the Constitution that once you take up arms against the US you are considered to have given up your citizenship. Now the founders were envisioning conventional warfare but there’s a legal argument to be made.
By the way, another way to lose your citizenship up until the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in the 30s was to be a female US citizen and marry a foreigner. You were immediately stripped of your US citizenship and had to become a citizen of your husbands country. Of course this did not apply to male US citizens who married women from another country. In fact their wives immediately received US citizenship at the time of marriage.
Was this fair or correct or equal treatment? I don’t think so, I doubt you would. Was it constitutional. Yes. It was.
And this is why we need a discussion about proper use of drones. If there’s an agreement that using drones is wrong I would be very uncomfortable about allowing use of drones within the US for non-warfare purposes as you suggest. That’s because of the slippery slope argument. However it’s quite possible the Genie is out of the bottle at this point anyway. Thankfully we have a Constitution which can be amended as times change or it’s quite possible women wouldn’t be voting today.
"Thankfully we have a
“Thankfully we have a Constitution which can be amended as times change or it’s quite possible women wouldn’t be voting today.”
Actually it wouldn’t be a possibility, if the Constitution weren’t designed to be fluid it would simply be a fact that women wouldn’t be voting.
Thanks for all your thoughts
Thanks for all your thoughts here, Rosa.
To clarify though, the blog post to which I linked previously was written by ‘bmaz’, a top-level blogger at Emptywheel not Marcy herself.
In fact, Marcy definitely did not try to take credit for the blog post that led to the rewrite of the OLC white paper. Au contraire, as the actual author Kevin Jon Heller at Opinio Juris noted in his follow-up post the other day:
http://opiniojuris.org/2013/03/10/why-the-public-authority-defense-does-not-work-for-the-cia/
There’s a good discussion happening in the comments of that post, BTW.
For anyone interested in Heller’s original 2010 blog post that apparently prompted OLC lawyers Marty Lederman and David Barron to worry about their legal justification for the murder of al-Awlaki, here’s the direct link:
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/04/08/lets-call-killing-al-awlaki-what-it-is-murder/
You're right. I had followed
You’re right. I had followed the link from bmaz through to Marcy’s article but thought she was referencing something she had written. I’ll read the Heller article as soon as I can, looks interesting. And thanks for the Guardian link, I’ll take a look at that also. It’s an interesting question due to the internet age. Do you have to be on the combat field to be in battle against the US and in fact, to have then automatically given up your citizenship and right to due process. Does the 14th Amendment overide the 18th, and if so, in what cases? What constitutes battle today. If someone strikes the US grid through the internet and shuts the country down is that battle? Boy, something the founders couldn’t have envisioned. Thanks for the links.
Rosa - not sure if you saw
Rosa – not sure if you saw this Guardian piece about international concern about US drone use…’discussions’ are happening…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/07/obama-reveal-legal-m…
Hmm
First you scold Mr Mike for appreantly not knowing the constitution, then go on to tell us what the founders intended, what Rand Paul means, thinks, and knows, and finally tell us you don’t have time to comment further. Followed, of course, by more comments.
For what it’s worth, I don’t know much about Senator Paul, but I do appreciate his use of the Senate rules that allow him to do what he did. You may not like it (or him), but he used a platform to state his views. I respect that, no matter which side of the aisle I’m on.
First of all I didn't say
First of all I didn’t say anything about what the founders intended, I just stated common knowledge about the fluidity of the design of our Constitution. Could you please point out where I in any way made a statement about what the founders intended.
Secondly I only made statements about Rand Paul’s thoughts based on, as I
stated, public comments he has made about drones used on the border and overseas. It’s in the public record, you think it’s unfair or somehow wrong to say this is what he said. Do a simple google search.
Thirdly, during the filibuster he did not state his views as he has declared in prior public statements. He obscured his views by giving the impression that he is against the use of drones when in fact he is not against the use of drones on the border with Mexico or armed overseas. No matter what side of the aisle anyone is on I expect a little less grandstanding and a little more up front honesty about positions.
And I’m not scolding Mike, I’m just pointing out that “unconstitutional” seems to bandied about a lot when in fact most of us, even legislators, aren’t all that knowledgeable about what is and isn’t constitutional. Sorry if that upsets you. Just making a point. I respect anyone on any side of the aisle that honestly states their views. That’s not what Paul did, which is why I object to him being hailed as some sort of anti-drone hero over this phony filibuster of his.
But you did...
I’m not upset at all. Just an amused observer. Your own words betray your denials.
“The founders designed the Constitution so it would be a flexible document…” Perhaps you were there?
“And by the way, I think Rand Paul is playing a lot of people. He knows da*(n well that many are defending him, assuming that his frivolous question about strikes in the US on citizens sitting in coffee shops was a declaration against all drone usage. It wasn’t, he’s happy not to clear the record and because so many of us just read what we find appealing to our own sensibilities on the internet there’s an apparent assumption that he is something he isn’t.” You know for sure what Senator Paul knows “da*(n well”?
“Thirdly, during the filibuster he did not state his views as he has declared in prior public statements.” You mean to tell me that a politician said something, and then said something different? The nerve! And is it only grandstanding when you don’t agree with the speaker? Was it grandstanding when other politicians have used the tactic? Or are there times when the filibuster has merit?
As I understand it (and granted, I clearly don’t have your insight), Senator Paul was trying to call attention to President Obama’s policy of targeting Americans on American soil. Or should I say, asking for clarification. No, he didn’t call attention to drone strikes on the Mexican border. But he was successful in bringing up a timely and pertinent topic that is, sadly, not receiving the press coverage of, say, the sequester cuts.
Perhaps “scolding” was a poor choice of words. Would you prefer admonishing? In either case, you implied that Mr Mike needed to do some studying on the constitution. I suggest we all do. Including you.
Didn't need to be there.
Didn’t need to be there. Perhaps a little high school social studies is in order.
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/lesson_20_notes.htm
Just do a Google search. US Constiution Flexibility
This is what is called common knowledge. I didn’t have to be there at the time because it’s common knowledge that the constitution was designed to be flexible. Do a google search.
Second Paragraph is my opinion. Let me state it differently for you. I think that Rand Paul knows full well that he has clouded the issue about his stand on drones. My opinion.
No it is not grandstanding just because I don’t agree with him. It is grandstanding whenever someone creates a false “question” and then uses it to draw publicity to themselves. Yes, of course there are times filibusters have merit. And not just when I agree with them.
Your next paragraph draws attention to the problem with Paul’s filibuster. President Obama does not have a policy of targeting Americans on American soil. What I have an issue with here, and this is my opinion, is that by using a false premise, Paul draws attention away from the larger and more critical question about drones. Can you explain why you think the administration has had a policy of targeting Americans on American soil? Please direct me to that information or an example of that being done.
I see that you’re anxious to go on the attack here as in “your own words betray your denials.” Instead of doing that why not provide some information that can be verified.
No, I'm not interested in
No, I’m not interested in attacking you, merely pointing out some inconsistencies in your argument. And thank you for bringing up common knowledge. Quite frankly, “common” knowledge seems to be a bit subjective these days. And your believing something to be “common” knowledge doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Stating that something is in your opinion, rather than being known to you, gives your argument far more credibility. In my opinion. So thank you for that bit of clarification.
Regarding Senator Paul’s filibuster, I thought I was clear when I rephrased my point about asking for clarity. Of course the President doesn’t have a policy of attacking Americans on American soil. But the justice department did bring the point up recently. It has come up in the media as well. NYT, Huff Po, WaPo, WSJ, MSNBC, FNC, the list goes on. And I don’t believe it to be grandstanding to ask for clarification.
"Quite frankly, "common"
“Quite frankly, “common” knowledge seems to be a bit subjective these days. And your believing something to be “common” knowledge doesn’t necessarily make it so.”
Well I guess you’ve got me there. Common knowledge is bit subjective these days. Whew. I just don’t know what else to say to that.