Ok, enough about me. Well, not really!
I blogged about having contacted my Congressman for the first time ever, in the context of the Obama administration's refusal to be transparent about the use of drones and targeted killings. I am happy that the senator lived up to the image I have of him--Senator Ron Wyden was the only Democrat to comment in support of Senator Rand Paul's filibuster on this issue.
And, later I tweeted a thanks to both those senators:@ronwyden Thanks for the principled stand. Am glad you represent us Oregonians. sriramkhe.blogspot.com/2013/02/i-cont…
— sriram khe (@congoboy) March 6, 2013
It is not that I am any avid fan of Rand Paul's--far from that. But, he does seem to be in a tiny minority of politicians who stick to their well defined principles, instead of the majority approach to always check which way the wind is blowing before committing to any position. In this case of drones and targeted assassinations, the questions he bring up related to civil liberty, the constitution, and the President's war powers, are serious and relevant questions that have not been asked ever since 9/11 happened.A loud shout out to a wonderful reason for bipartisanship, thanks to @senrandpaul and @ronwyden #Drones #Filibuster
— sriram khe (@congoboy) March 7, 2013
Conor Friedersdorf writes
When Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, stopped by the Senate floor Wednesday to help out Rand Paul with his filibuster, he spoke for several minutes in the guise of asking a question. But his remarks can really be boiled down to one powerful sentence that I've transcribed:Amy Goodman asks an important question:
Mr. President, what it comes down to is every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.Ponder the modesty of that claim. He is merely asking that American citizens be given the most basic information about their legal system: when they're lawfully subject to capital punishment.
What would possibly justify withholding it?
The mere fact that multiple U.S. senators, civil-liberties organizations and journalists are having to hound the Obama Administration for answers is a scandal. Promulgating the law is one of the most basic precursors of its legitimacy. Yet the bulk of Congress is as yet content with ignorance.
Where are the civil libertarians in the president's party that we must rely on a Tea Party Republican to champion this issue?She concludes thus:
Barack Obama and John Brennan direct the drone strikes that are killing thousands of civilians. It doesn't make us safer. It makes whole populations, from Yemen to Pakistan, hate us. Senator Paul's outrage with the president's claimed right to kill US citizens is entirely appropriate. That there is not more outrage at the thousands killed around the globe is shameful … and dangerous.Yes, shameful and dangerous :(
2 comments:
Congratulations good Professor. May your readership increase manifold.
I am lost as to why the Obama administration is dragging its feet on the drones issue. Surely they would never resort to a drone attack on a US citizen on US soil. Even if they have to take out a guy without due process of law, all they have to do is to assassinate him - something that has been going on for long and will always go on. Why the need for a drone ? Drones are needed only in enemy territory ; why are they needed in the US. Rand Paul is only asking for confirmation that they wouldn't use a drone to kill somebody on American soil. I cannot fathom why that cannot be stated unequivocally ??
What am I missing ?
It is simply not easy to give up power. If you have a kill-list, and you can kill with no questions asked, then isn't that the ultimate power in a democracy? ;)
Obama has massively built on the power that the Bush administration grabbed, which has essentially made Congress the junior partner in the governance system. Instead of equals, now it is a case of some are more equal than others.
The way I read this situation, Rand Paul is not merely going after the drones and civil liberties issue--he wants to reset that balance of power, consistent with the arrangement that the Constitution sets out. If Paul had filibustered like this during Obamacare, for instance, then the GOP would have lined up behind him. But, this was about drones and killing the "bad guys" for national security. Which is why we witnessed the bizarre spectacle of GOP leaders like McCain and Graham supporting Obama and tearing into Paul.
And, BTW, the CIA director nominee, Brennan, was considered for the same post during Obama's first term. But, his support for torture made it uncomfortable for Obama and the Democrats when they had made a big deal out of that under Bush. Four years later, we have all forgotten everything about torture. Brennan becomes the director. Bipartisanship!!!
Post a Comment