Benedict Arnold Was a War Hero Too

4
156

I realize I might be a few days late here, but this has been on my mind all weekend and I finally have time to sit down.  I was happy to hear about Rand Paul’s filibuster last week.  It brought a very serious subject to the minds of a lot of people who didn’t previously know or care about the drone situation in the United States.

What prompted Rand Paul’s filibuster was a response he received from Eric Holder to a letter Paul wrote to John Brennan on February 20 asking for clarification on whether or not the President has the authority to take out an American citizen, specifically with a drone strike, on American soil, without a trial. Eric Holder’s response was scary.  He said it is unlikely, but possible, to occur.  You can read a copy of the letter here.

I could write about all the truly innocent lives lost to American drone strikes overseas, and if they don’t care about foreign civilians, why should I expect them to care about our lives?  But what angered me more than Eric Holder’s honest response (at least he didn’t just lie and say, “no”) was what John McCain said last Thursday in response to Paul’s filibuster.

For all of you who never heard John McCain speak, he was a POW in Vietnam.  I’m not sure what gets mentioned more often, John Kerry’s Purple Hearts, or John McCain’s time as a POW?  So since he was a POW, we’re supposed to hold his opinions higher than any others.  McCain said it is “a stretch of imagination” and “ridiculous” that any US president would bomb a Jane Fonda in a coffee shop.  And to be honest with you, I really don’t think that any president would bomb someone who disagrees with the administration. I really do believe (maybe naively) that this law is there with the intention to protect the United States against terrorism.

Unfortunately, there is that document called the Constitution that our elected politicians and soldiers, including John McCain, swear to uphold.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

So, John, (who I’m sure is a big McFloogle reader) can you tell me how you are upholding the Constitution when you defend an administration who admits it is possible to bomb an American citizen on American soil without a trial?  I am shocked that this could even be debated on the floor of Congress.  As painful as it may be for many people to admit, all Americans, without exception, are protected from the government by the Constitution.

Who gets to decide who is guilty? Who is making the list? Are any Americans really comfortable with one person, or one administration, deciding who is a threat? Is it possible that they could be wrong?  Innocent people are arrested all the time. Why should we think the feds are incapable of making a mistake?  Take a look at the 20th century to find others who had that same power…Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, among others.  I’m not saying that Obama will be the next one, but he is already responsible for more deaths than Bush.  Where did all the war protestors go?

My point is, even if the American is a card holding member of Al-Qaeda, he is still protected by the Constitution.  If they know where he is and what he is doing, wouldn’t it be in the administration’s best interest to detain him and get information instead of dropping a bomb on him? No one, especially the federal government, can just decide someone is guilty. Instead of drones, why don’t we just have a federal agent walk into the target’s home and put a bullet in his head.  That would eliminate any collateral damage from a drone. Would people still be in favor of that?

God Bless Freedom, Liberty, and Personal Property,

Slappy Jones II

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Rollo McFloogle
Guest
I think you hit the nail on the head, but I’m going to try to push you a little with a bit of devil’s advocate. First of all, it’s all well and good that you don’t want to use drone strikes against American citizens, but what happens if there’s a serious threat to our national security? Isn’t it better for one man who is probably guilty of conspiring against the US to die instead of risking the lives of possibly thousands of innocent civilians? If on the morning of 9/11, you had the a strong suspect of Al Qaeda in… Read more »
slappyjones2
Guest
Nice, a challenge from Rollo. It is late and I have to be up for work tomorrow…Ok, here we go, Define a serious threat to national security. Is a serious threat someone who emails a relative in Syria? Is a serious threat someone who says, “I agree with Al-Qaeda?” Is a serious threat someone on a computer arguing for less government intrusion? Who makes that decision? If you have a 50/50 chance you’re looking at a terrorist, you also have a 50/50 chance you’re dealing with an innocent civilian. Even if it is 90/10, 1 in 10 is innocent. If… Read more »
D.J. Gaggy Gag
Guest
Rollo, I get your point about national security – however in what instance previously would this have mattered – by mattered I mean where would a drone have made a difference or been the only option? For example your 9/11 point – at what point would a drone been used in that situation? Before take off you obviously wouldn’t because the plane was the weapon. not to mention the information that you could have gotten – after take off one would assume the collateral damage from blowing up a plane in flight would be tough to calculate as opposed to… Read more »
Steve
Guest
Slappy Jones nailed it. While it’s true that the battlefield in the War on Terrorism may actually be on American soil, there is still structure in place to adhere to the Constitution. We have emergency courts and judges available 24 hours a day to sign warrants for national security purposes. Even if a threat is imminent, we can still afford due process to citizens. As far as Senator McCain is concerned, I found his criticisms of Senator Paul extremely disconcerting. Senator Paul’s filibuster was a genuine effort to highlight a potential threat to citizens’ civil liberties. It is scary that… Read more »