“I
rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue
that the President has the power to kill American citizens not
involved in combat,” Paul will say on the Senate floor
Wednesday. “I rise today to say that there is no legal
precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in
combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power
to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the
Supreme Court.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), whose
filibuster last year against the nomination of Barack Obama’s
pick to head the CIA won plaudits from across the political
spectrum,
is pushing back against the nomination of David Barron to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
As Paul explained in
The New York Times, Barron authored at least two memos
justifying the killing by the U.S. government of a U.S. ciitzen
abroad. No trial necessary. Paul isn’t alone in wanting more
information about Barron’s role in the Office of Legal Counsel
(OLC).
I agree with the A.C.L.U. that “no senator can meaningfully
carry out his or her constitutional obligation to provide ‘advice
and consent’ on this nomination to a lifetime position as a federal
appellate judge without being able to read Mr. Barron’s most
important and consequential legal writing.” The A.C.L.U. cites the
fact that in modern history, a presidential order to kill an
American citizen away from a battlefield is unprecedented.
The
Bill of Rights is clear. The Fifth Amendment provides that no one
can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law.” The Sixth Amendment provides that “the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” as
well as the right to be informed of all charges and have access to
legal counsel. These are fundamental rights that cannot be waived
with a presidential pen.In battle, combatants engaged in war against America get no due
process and may lawfully be killed. But citizens not in a
battlefield, however despicable, are guaranteed a trial by our
Constitution.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), the only Democrat to join Paul’s
filibuster last year, just finished up a speech on C-SPAN calling
for full disclosure of the memos.
A Boston Globe report says
Some Democrats, including Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, have
expressed public reservations about Barron, prompting the White
House to allow all 100 senators to review at least some of the
confidential documents Barron wrote. Wyden’s spokeswoman said
Tuesday that he had not yet taken a position on the nomination.Barron’s legal opinion was related to the potential use of
deadly force against Americans in counterterrorism operations. It
is believed to be the legal basis for the drone killing of Anwar
al-Awlaki, an American who allegedly recruited for Al Qaeda in
Yemen. Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union
called for a delay in the confirmation vote so senators could
review related documents.
Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is confident enough
Dems will vote in favor of Barron. Boy, that’s great.
Say what you will about most senators, who are really useless
when it comes to principled action. Thank you, Sens. Wyden and
Paul, for salvaging some shred of dignity for the Senate. And shame
on all those who just can’t be bothered to stand for something
other than cheap partisan advantage. The inability of elected
leaders to actually articulate and follow principles is the main
reason why people hate politicians. Who can blame them? You don’t
need to agree with pols all the time, or even any of the time, to
be able to respect them. But when they so transparently push
partisan agendas that are at odds with their supposed beliefs,
well, screw them all.
How is it that the White House, whether run by a Dem or a Rep,
can get away with only giving senators just “some of the
confidential documents” that a nominee has written? It’s bad enough
that the Obama admin calls itself the most-transparent regime EVAH
even as it withholds all sort of info from us regular people. But
to refuse senators full access? That’s incredible. As is any
senator’s willingness to participate in a vote under such
circumstances.
Breaking: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is now
talking about Barron on
C-SPAN2, mostly attacking him as a judicial activist.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1h8msNQ
via IFTTT