On March 5, 2013, Sen. Rand Paul held a 13 hour filibuster against John Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA, citing his concerns over the administration’s belief in the ability to use drones to assassinate US Citizens.
On March 6, 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz grilled AG Eric Holder over the issue of using drones to assassinate US Citizens while “sitting in a café drinking a cup of coffee,” asking Eric Holder if he thought that was “Constitutional”.
Now Rand Paul has filibustered the nomination of David Barron to fill a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Why? For the same reason as before, drones. So what is the big concern? Why are Rand Paul and Ted Cruz so convinced that this administration is going to use drones against US citizens? Because they know something they are not telling you. They know that the DOJ has issued a paper, The White Paper, proclaiming their right to do just that.
Advertisement – story continues below
On February 5, 2013, a Department of Justice document, The White Paper, was leaked to Michael Isikoff from NBC. Isikoff reported and released this paper to the world and attempted to show the DOJ’s intentions to secretly assassinate U.S. citizens in the name of national security. This DOJ White Paper is a quasi-legal analysis justifying the government’s use of lethal force to assassinate US Citizens classified as a potential hostile by the President or by any “high level official of the U.S. government”, anywhere on the globe, with no due process, even when there is no evidence to support such an accusation. Sound too “Orwellian” to be true? Let’s see what has Paul and Cruz so worked up.
In true progressive form, this paper redefines terms to create the DOJ’s justification to use drones to assassinate Citizens. Today’s redefinition involves the words “Imminent threat,” and it is redefined to include a citizen plotting some threat at some distant time. The government does not have “to have clear evidence that a specific attack…will take place in the immediate future.” And though much is made about the Law of War, the citizen to be assassinated can be far from the “actual hostility.” The DOJ eliminates the barriers of “geographic limitations” and asserts the ability to “follow” the target to a “a new nation.” Let us not forget the provisions of the 2012 NDAA that allow the President to transfer the powers under the “Law of War” to the FBI, DHS, and local law enforcement, making it possible for the U.S. to be the new battleground. Here is what the Democrats say were the results of the 2012 NDAA:
“Because I believe our national security professionals should decide the best way to detain and prosecute terror suspects, I also opposed provisions of the defense authorization act that would allow only the military to handle terror suspects…Efforts to change that language failed in the Senate. But after negotiations with the House of Representatives, the final legislation preserves the rights of the Federal Bureau of Investigations and allows the President to waive the requirements for military custody when necessary to preserve national security.”–Sen. Bill Nelson, (D-FL)
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.