Oregon's Ron Wyden explains his Brennan vote

Remember a post from a couple of weeks ago when I noted that for the first time I contacted my Congress-member expressing my concerns?  It was about President Obama and his administration operating with their own twisted interpretations of the Constitution and war powers, and over the extensive use of drones--even to kill American citizens abroad.

I was delighted that Ron Wyden spoke up about these issues while joining Rand Paul's filibuster over the CIA Director nominee.

Well, today I got an email from Senator Wyden.  I assume it is a form letter/statement to people like me who had contacted him on these issues.  Though his vote to confirm the nominee doesn't please me, I suppose politics is always winning some and losing some.  Plus, our state's other senator--Jeff Merkley--voted against the nominee :)

Here's the text of Wyden's email:

Dear Dr. Khe:

Thank you for contacting me about the nomination of John O. Brennan to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you know, in January 2013 President Obama nominated Mr. Brennan to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  The Senate confirmed Mr. Brennan in March by a vote of 63 to 34.  My decision to ultimately vote to confirm him came after a hard-fought battle to shine more light on actions that the executive branch has taken in the course of national security operations.

Soon after the president nominated Mr. Brennan to be Director of the CIA, I sent him a letter asking that he provide Congress with the secret legal opinions outlining the government’s ability to deliberately kill Americans when conducting counterterrorism operations.  Despite many previous requests, the Administration had not been adequately forthcoming to Congress about the legal justifications for targeting and potentially killing U.S. citizens believed to be involved in terrorism.  I sent this letter because it is critically important for Congress and the American people to have full knowledge of how the executive branch understands the limits and boundaries of this authority. I also spoke on the Senate floor during Senator Paul’s filibuster of Mr. Brennan’s nomination because I believed it was important for the Administration to clarify that these authorities cannot be used inside the United States.  

In my view, if American citizens choose to join al-Qa’ida and take up arms against the United States, there are absolutely some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans, just as President Lincoln had the authority to take military action against Confederate forces during the Civil War. It’s important for the president to have the authority to deal with this threat. However, it’s also important for the American people to be able to understand the limits of the president’s authority. And it’s especially important for the American people to know when the president can kill an American citizen and when he can’t.

After seven separate requests over the last two years, I was finally able to obtain access to these secret memos in the course of the Brennan confirmation process.  I am closely reading through these memos and I will be working to get a significant portion declassified.  And I am pleased that the Attorney General has now acknowledged that these authorities cannot be used inside the United States.  It is vitally important for every American to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them.  Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight, especially on issues of life and death.  That’s the job that you and other constituents hired me to do.  Please know that I will continue to fight for transparency so long as I have the honor to serve as your Senator.

Thank you for keeping me apprised on the issues of importance to you.  If I may be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

                        Sincerely, 
                             
                        Ron Wyden
                        United States Senator 

A few updates ... if you care, that is!

A while ago, I blogged about the Feedburner data, and I thought it was only a matter of time before the subscriptions reached 100.  Well, it is past that number and I am excited; it doesn't take much to get me all excited anyway ;)

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.

@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

And, later I tweeted a thanks to both those senators:

A loud shout out to a wonderful reason for bipartisanship, thanks to @senrandpaul and @ronwyden #Drones #Filibuster
— sriram khe (@congoboy) March 7, 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.

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: 

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. 

Amy Goodman asks an important question:

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 :(

I contacted my Senator regarding the drones. You should too.

For all my blogging and op-ed writing, I have stayed away from contacting my Congress-members regarding any issue. I figured that after electing them, I can go about my work while they do theirs.  After all, if unhappy with them, I can always vote for somebody else later on.

But, I broke that trend.

On the issue of drones.

The following is the message:

Comedians are becoming better newsmen these days

David Letterman could have been a little less pushy and a tad funnier ... but, way better than the "news" programs where they "interview" politicians.

On American exceptionalism ...

Rand Paul remarked yesterday that:

"America is exceptional, but it is not inherently so." It is the choice of freedom that creates the fragile exception, not a blood/soil birthright.

And Michael Kinsley has a wonderful column on this topic, where he notes:

This conceit that we’re the greatest country ever may be self-immolating. If people believe it’s true, they won’t do what’s necessary to make it true. The Brits, who suffer no such delusion (and who, in fact, cherish the national myth of being people who smile through adversity), have just accepted cuts in government spending that no American politician — even a tea bagger — would dream of proposing. Maybe these cuts are a mistake or badly timed, but when the British voted for “change,” they really got it.

Every time I strike this note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me elitist or unpatriotic. Here is my answer: If you think a friend is talking nonsense or behaving in a way that damages both of your long-term interests, it is not elitist to say so. To the contrary, it is treating him or her like an adult and an equal. As for patriotism, if you think your country is in danger, how is it unpatriotic to say so?

I tell my students a variation of these: not to assume that the "American Dream" will come true just because they are born here, but that they have to work for it. The "American Dream" is not an entitlement. America is a wonderful place where the work can payoff in many ways. But, hey, it is the work that delivers.