I'm all about finding, torturing and killing terrorists but but with the job comes responsibility and accountability. Those in command must be held accountable.
On Mar 15, 3:26 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Charles Krauthammer's false statement about the US ConstitutionTo justify the > president's War on Terror policies, the Washington Post columnist spreads a > demonstrable mythGlenn Greenwald > Friday 15 March 2013 10.28 EDT > > Charles Krauthammer falsely claims the US government is free to act against > citizens on foreign soil without regard to the constraints of the > Constitution Pen Photograph: Alamy > Charles Krauthammer'sWashington Post column this morning, which calls on > Congress to enact new legislation authorizing and regulating Obama's drone > attacks, is actually worth reading. That's because it highlights the central > fact about the Obama legacy when it comes to US militarism, war, and civil > liberties. Referencing the monumental shift in how Democrats think about such > matters now as compared to the Bush years, he writes:"Such hypocrisy is the > homage Democrats pay to Republicans when the former take office, confront > national security reality, feel the weight of their duty to protect the > nation and end up doing almost everything they had denounced their > predecessors for doing. The beauty of such hypocrisy, however, is that the > rotation of power creates a natural bipartisan consensus on the proper > conduct of this war . . ."Necessity having led the Bush and Obama > administrations to the use of near-identical weapons and tactics, a national > consensus has been forged. Let's make it open."That Obama has ushered in a > "bipartisan consensus" for these policies - transforming them from the > divisive symbols of right-wing extremism into the unchallenged framework of > both parties' establishments - is indisputable, one of the most consequential > aspects of his presidency. > But Krauthammer's real purpose with this column is to mock and excoriate Rand > Paul's anti-drone filibuster. Asthe New York Times describes today, there is > an increasingly acrimonious split in the GOP about the policies of militarism > and civil liberties enacted in the 9/11 era, and neocons like Krauthammer are > petrified that the (relative) anti-war and pro-due-process stances > articulated by Paul will gain traction. Krauthammer notes that, contrary to > the claims of many progressives, Paul's opposition was not merely to killing > Americans on US soil, but was broader: it was about assassinating citizens > without due process anywhere they may be found. Referencinga Washington Post > Op-Edin which Paul declared that "no American should be killed by a drone > without first being charged with a crime," Krauthammer writes: "note the > absence of the restrictive clause: 'on American soil'". Here's how > Krauthammer describes Paul's real purpose in launching the filibuster:"Paul's > unease applies to non-American drone targets as well. His quarrel is with the > very notion of the war on terror, though he is normally too smart to say that > openly and unequivocally. Unlike his father, who implied that 9/11 was > payback for our sins, Paul the Younger more gingerly expresses general > skepticism about not just the efficacy but the legality of the entire > war."That Paul became the first US Senator on the Senate floor to utter the > name "Abdulrahaman Awlaki" - the 16-year-old US-born citizen killed by a US > drone in Yemen - bolsters Krauthammer's claim that the Paul filibuster was > about more than just the use of force on US soil, but rather posed a > challenge to the War on Terror premises generally. That is precisely why > Krauthammer - along with all other neocons and, notably, many Democratic > Party Obama-supporters - are desperate to discredit the Paul filibuster and > the sentiments it stoked: regardless of Paul's motives, the filibuster called > into question both the wisdom and legality of the entire Endless War approach > to Terrorism. > But to discredit this, Krauthammer makes a claim about the US Constitution > that is so patently false as to be retraction-worthy. He writes (emphasis > added):"Now we're talking about a larger, more controversial issue: the > killing-by-drone in Yemen of al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki. Outside > American soil, the Constitution does not rule, no matter how much Paul would > like it to."That italicizied claim from Krauthammer - that "outside American > soil, the Constitution does not rule" - is a very common assertion and thus > widely believed. But it is factually false. And there can be no reasonable > dispute about this. > To begin with, think about what it would mean if Krauthammer's claim were > true: does anyone think it would be constitutionally permissible under the > First Amendment for the US government to wait until an American critic of the > Pentagon travels on vacation to London and then kill him, or to bomb a bureau > of the New York Times located in Paris in retaliation for a news article it > disliked, or to indefinitely detain with no trial an American who travels to > Beijing or Lima or Oslo and who is suspected of committing a crime? Anyone > who believes what Charles Krauthammer said this morning - "Outside American > soil, the Constitution does not rule" - would have to take the patently > ludicrous position that such acts would be perfectly constitutional. > But to see how false is Krauthammer's claim, it's unnecessary to engage in > that kind of reasoning. The law is crystal clear on this matter. In 1957, the > US Supreme Court decidedthe case of Reid v. Covertin which this exact > question was conclusively decided: does the Bill of Rights restrict what the > US Government does to US citizens on foreign soil? The Court answered the > question as decisively and unambiguously as the English language permits > (emphasis added):"At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the United > States acts against citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. > The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and > authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the > limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to > punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other > parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not > be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land."How can > anyWashington Posteditor read what the Supreme Court said and not compel a > retraction of Krauthammer's claim? > The Court then cited both the biblical Paul's right to demand as a Roman > citizen that his foreign trial be conducted in accordance with Roman law, as > well the observations of an English historian that British subjects of the > Crown who went to live in settled colonies "take with them all the rights and > liberties of British Subjects; all the rights and liberties as against the > Prerogative of the Crown, which they would enjoy in this country". About the > fact that the US Constitution restricts what the US government can do to > citizens on foreign soil, the Court thus explained: "This is not a novel > concept. To the contrary, it is as old as government." > Notably, while noting that this principle applies equally to all > Constitutional guarantees when the US government acts against a citizen on > foreign soil, the Court made clear that of all the rights, the guarantee of a > fair trial before the state can punish or kill a citizen is the most central > (emphasis added):"This Court and other federal courts have held or asserted > that various constitutional limitations apply to the Government when it acts > outside the continental United States. While it has been suggested that only > those constitutional rights which are 'fundamental' protect Americans abroad, > we can find no warrant, in logic or otherwise, for picking and choosing among > the remarkable collection of 'Thou shalt nots' which were explicitly fastened > on all departments and agencies of the Federal Government by the Constitution > and its Amendments. Moreover, in view of our heritage and the history of the > adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it seems peculiarly > anomalous to say that trial before a civilian judge and by an independent > jury picked from the common citizenry is not a fundamental right. . . . Trial > by jury in a court of law and in accordance with traditional modes of > procedure after an indictment by grand jury has served and remains one of our > most vital barriers to governmental arbitrariness. These elemental procedural > safeguards were embedded in our Constitution to secure their inviolateness > and sanctity against the passing demands of expediency or convenience."One > can debate if one is inclined whether this applies to specific cases such as > Awlaki. But Krauthammer's general claim about the law - that "outside > American soil, the Constitution does not rule" - is grounded in total > ignorance. Writing in 2007 in the Los Angeles Times about Reid v. Covert and > the War on Terror specifically, UCLA law professor Kal Raustialaexplained: > "The shield of the Constitution, the justices stated in reversing a > centuries-old legacy, cannot be ignored by the executive branch simply > because the accused happens to be abroad." > Aside from the fact that the Washington Post should not be publishing clear > factual falsehoods about the state of the law, the reason this matters so > much is that distorting the Constitution is the key tactic for inducing > public acquiescence to its violations. As I'vedocumented before, many of the > War on Terror abuses have been justified with the equally false claim that > the US Constitution applies only to US citizens and not to foreign nationals > on US soil and US-controlled territory (such as at Guantanamo). > The War on Terror has been and continues to be, above all, a war on the most > basic liberties and political safeguards that we're all taught are what > distinguishes the US and keeps it free. One major reason that has happened is > because patently false claims about those rights have been systematically > propagated. Having the Washington Post publish Krauthammer's false claim that > "outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule" is a particularly > egregious example of that behavior.Erasing the Jose Padilla case from > historyLike so many people who defend Obama's War on Terror policies and mock > Paul's filibuster, Krauthammer suggests that the very idea that the US > government could treat a US citizen on US soil as an enemy combatant and thus > punish them without due process is so absurd as to be paranoid to even raise > the question. Does anyone rememberthe Jose Padilla case: in which the Bush > administration, in 2002, detained this US citizen, on US soil; declared him > to be an "enemy combatant"; and then proceeded to imprison him for the next 3 > 1/2 years without charges or trial - all with little public resistance and, > ultimately,endorsement from a right-wing court? Was Charles Krauthammer > objecting to any of that? Were all of the people now claiming that it's > paranoia to think that the US government would use war power theories against > a US citizen on US soil marching in the streets in protest over this? The > answer is: no. > The US government has already asserted the very theory that many now mock > Paul for asking about, and did so with very little resistance, including from > the courts. It's true that they did not kill Padilla, but the theory used to > imprison him for years without charges - the president is empowered to > declare anyone he wants to be an "enemy combatant" without charges and trial > and then punish him as such: including US citizens found on US soil - is > precisely the theory that would justify targeting US citizens on US soil for > an Awlaki-type strike. Indeed, that is the theory invoked to justify the > killing of Awlaki, and there is no cogent way to exclude US soil: since the > entire globe is a battlefield, the president has the unilateral power to > detain or kill anyone he wants, including citizens, without charges. To > pretend that this is so beyond the pale of what US political culture would > tolerate is to exhibit serious naïveté and/or ignorance of recent > history.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/15/charles-krauthammer-constitutional-ignorance-foreign-soil -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
