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