Ted Cruz grilling Eric Holder

Politico reported on Ted Cruz's grilling of Eric Holder regarding a question of whether the President can order a drone strike on an American citizen who is known to be involved in terrorist activity if that person is at a cafe but not actively posing a threat of violence. Cruz was asking if it's allowed Constitutionally, but Holder avoided giving a yes or no answer. Below is part of the conversation as reported in the article.

Cruz clarified that he was talking about a terrorist suspect, but one not presently carrying out an attack.

“I would not think in that situation the use of a drone or lethal force would be appropriate,” Holder said. He noted that law enforcement has greater ability to capture a suspect in the U.S. than in some places abroad.

Cruz said he was asking a legal question, not one about propriety. “I find it remarkable that with a hypothetical that is deliberately very simple you’re unable to give a one word, one syllable answer: no,” the freshman Texas senator said.

“Translate my appropriate to: no,” Holder said. “I thought I was saying no.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/senators-grill-eric-holder-on-drone-policy-88508.html#ixzz2Ms83LqX9

This morning I heard several pundits criticizing Cruz because they said Holder answered the question before Cruz's final exasperation and before Holder said translate inappropriate to no. Holder also said he had answered the question, yet, Holder had not answered the question. Clarity is what Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and a few others are demanding, yet clarity is hard to come by. Joe Scarborough, on Morning Joe, also criticized Cruz after listening to the above conversation, implying that Cruz was out of line by saying Holder couldn't give a simple yes or no answer.

Okay, here's clarity -- No, of course not.

When Holder said that use of a drone in the situation Cruz suggested would not be appropriate, that says nothing about whether Holder believes it's forbidden legally. I have a right of free speech, but excercising that right at times might be found inappropriate by others who think silence would be more appropriate -- however, being judged inappropriate says nothing about whether free speech is a right or not. Surely the intelligent pundits on the Left, and the Centrists like Scarborough, can tell the difference between a clear response and a response that equivocates. Surely, they must know the difference, so why do they pretend that Holder was being clear? This is why I write about the media and the political class. It's this type of dishonesty that's slowly destroying open debate and creating unnecessary division. It's deceitful.

Yes, the President can kill an American inside US without due process

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/obama-admin-says-it-can-use-lethal-force-against-americans-us-soil

MSM haven't picked up on this to the extent you'd think they would have, seeing as how this is an amazing and dangerous admission of presidential power. Eric Holder was careful to say it would have to be an extraordinary circumstance, but the President can order, by himself, the killing of American citizens without due process. It doesn't do any good to say the situation would be extraordinary, or urgent, or special, or whatever adjective you want to apply -- unless there are clear, enforcable limits, then the decision can be made just because the President says it's necessary.

I'm sure most Americans trust that a President won't just use this power willy nilly, but that's not the point -- the point is that a President shouldn't have this power. The Attorney General advising the President is not good enough either. Americans and their representatives have to push back on this. We can't become jaded and complacent to the point we simply give up all our rights and liberties, because we're giving up the rights and liberties of generations to come, not just our rights and liberties. We should be ashamed that we've allowed government power to advance this far.

Sequestration Madness -- Catch It!

Watching Morning Joe today, the panel, Richard Haas, Chris Matthews, Mika, Joe Scarborough, and a few others, discussed sequestration. The talk in media now is that both sides deserve blame for setting up this stupid automatic spending cut trigger if they failed to make a deal on raising the debt and developing smart cuts and reforms in government spending to offset the growing costs of entitlement spending. The reason media sources like Morning Joe, and pundits like Chris Matthews, switched from blaming the GOP solely to blaming both sides for the sequestration stand off is that Bob Woodward came forward and revealed conversations he had with WH personnel during the writing of his new book in which the WH admitted to coming up with the sequestration idea, and that the deal was only planned -- negotiated spending cuts would be considered to avoid across the board cuts. Woodward destroyed the Democrats' narrative of GOP obstructionism, and Woodward accused President Obama of moving the goal posts, as Obama reportedly did when dealing with John Boehner on the original Grand Bargain.

It appears that Obama doesn't want a deal in which both sides look good. Obama wants to make the Republicans look like obstructionists protecting the super-rich, or Obama wants Republicans to capitulate on more taxes and divide the Republican Party even deeper and wider. The guests on Morning Joe have talked some about the political games played, but it's usually in terms of Republican obstructionism because they're captured by an extreme Tea Party base. The guests will sometimes admit that Obama is playing hardball, but they excuse it by saying Obama won the presidential election and, therefore, has the political clout to mostly get his way. The pundits usually fail to mention that GOP lawmakers won in the House, and we have a balance of power in US government, not a monarchy.

I've written recently about the danger in giving our Presidents the power we now give them. If there's any hope of avoiding bankruptcy, complete loss of freedom and eventual collapse, it's with representatives in the House and Governors in states. We can't allow a few pockets of power in federal government to control the nation and our economy. Obama has declared war on all obstacles to his pursuit of power. Obama is not pursuing power alone -- he's pushed by Progressive forces who see this opportunity as their time to shine, to make policy that will transform America into a post-capitalist era of democratic socialism which frees us from economic tyranny and establishes a real path to social justice and equality. Obama has taken every chance to rail against the rich and demand that they pay their fair share. Of course, some of the rich are necessary partners in the Progressive agenda, so they get preferential treatment, but they are only tools, not real partners. If Progressives succeed, the winners in a transformed world State planned of production and services will be determeined by political, ad hoc expediency, and those who are favored today might be disfavored tomorrow. When our nation and economy are control by political means, it will be a totally different world. They will achive equality in that the standard of living for the great majority will be low. The few in power will not be accused of inequality because they are protecting the people from the tyrannical rich who will rise again if not for the courageous efforts of the few in control.

So, this sequestration silliness is only a diversion. There are some in the political realm who understand the stakes, but they haven't decided where they stand and what they're willing to risk. Fighting against a gigantic State machine is intimidating, not for the weak of heart, and we have a lot of weak hearts in Congress. There are many in the political realm who will call what I've written extremist rhetoric, and they will make jokes about the Kenyan Marxist President, and they will go along, like they go along with drone strikes and a war that's killing men and women and children for purely political reasons. These people are lost in the obscurantism and rationalizations of political power.

Morning Joe 2/8/2013 -- Brennan, the CIA and killing Americans

Mika did a fine job hosting Morning Joe today. There was a good, brisk discussion among David Gregory, Eugene Washington, Zbigniew Brzezenski, Sam Stein and David Ignatius. I wrote a post last night addressing some of the concerns they discussed. I agreed with those in this morning's discussion who said the President should delegate drone killing decisions, especially the decision to kill an American suspected of joining al Qaeda, and that a judge should be involved in the decision-making process.

Some on the panel, like Donnie Deutsche, used the same logic as John Brennan used when Brennan told the Senate panel that killing an American traitor, or drone use in general, is justified because it saves American lives. If saving American lives is the only criteria for taking actions in war, then we can justify torture, chemical weapons, nuking an entire nation, and anything else the military can think of to save American lives. America, however, has tried to things differently, to set standards in war, as have other nations since the horrors of previous wars caused civilized people to set rules for war. We have to develope rules for drones and for Awlaki-like situations. This seems obvious, so I'm not sure why anyone has a problem understanding this.

Many on the Left appear determined to rationalize greater power given to President Obama, although once a Republican President gets in office, they'll want to take these powers away. I'll write a post later on State power as it relates to defense and security.

Before our government kills a citizen

Those making the decision had better be damn sure. It's not good enough to have documentation that the American has talked about terrorist acts, or has been in the company of suspected terrorists. We might not like an American citizen who rails against America and claims association with known terrorist groups. It's not enough for some informant to say the American has been plotting terrorist actions.

If there's a enough evidence to try the person for a crime against the nation, then the evidence should be presented to a court before determining further actions. If there's undeniable evidence that the American is planning an attack, then it doesn't take long to run this evidence by a judge in order to decide a course of action -- it can be done quickly.

I can't imagine a situation in which it's best or necessary for the President or a high-level government official to make the decision to kill the American without getting agreement from a judge. I can't understand those who agree that the President or a high-level official should have the power to kill an American citizen without due process. They hide their agreement behind a made-up situation of an American as a high leader in an al Qaeda cell who's actively fighting against Americans -- they then snarkily ask what is supposed to be done, put him to the side while we kill the other bad guys then read him his rights? That's cute, but it's not the issue. In the heat of battle, you'd kill the person and find out his American status later, so the argument is bogus. And even if an unusual situation is presented in which American soldiers are in danger, and it is known that the group presenting the threat contains an American, if the decision to kill the entire group is made, it's understandable that something had to be done quickly. The real issue is when you have the time to follow an American who's suspected of terrorist involvement -- how is this process handled. It requires due process.