Rand Paul's Misplaced Celebration: Obama - To Remove The Sword From The Sheath
14 March 2013By Jacob G. Hornberger
With his 13-hour filibuster of President Obama's
nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director, U.S.
Senator Rand Paul has drawn the nation's attention to
the issue of whether President Obama claims the
authority to assassinate American citizens here at
home, on American soil.
The president, through Attorney General Eric Holder,
initially stated that the president could use the
military to kill Americans on U.S. soil but only in an
"extraordinary circumstance." Holder emphasized,
however, that the president has "no intention of doing
so."
Yesterday, at a daily briefing, White House Press
Secretary Jay Carney read a short letter from Holder
that's states as follows:
"Dear Senator Paul: It has come to my attention that
you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the
President have the authority to use a weaponized drone
to kill an American not engaged in combat on American
soil?' The answer to that question is no. Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr."
Senator Paul has construed that statement to mean that
Obama is not claiming the authority to assassinate
Americans on U.S. soil. "Hooray!" he exclaimed on Fox
News, followed by a statement to CNN that he is "quite
happy" with Holder's letter and only wished it hadn't
taken so long to get an answer.
Unfortunately, Paul's celebration is misplaced. The
unequivocal reality is that President Obama, like
President Bush before him, does in fact claim the
authority to assassinate Americans and anyone else,
both here and abroad. This claim follows logically
from how they view the so-called war on terrorism.
When the 9/11 attacks occurred, President Bush labeled
them an act of war, notwithstanding the fact that they
constituted criminal offenses. In fact, just today we
are reminded, once again, that terrorism, including
the 9/11 terrorism and terrorism committed by al-Qaeda,
are federal criminal offenses by the U.S. government's
plan to seek a federal grand-jury indictment against
Osama bin Laden's son in law for conspiracy to kill
Americans.
Moreover, don't forget that Zacharias Moussaoui, who
was accused of having conspired to commit the 9/11
attacks, was prosecuted, tried, and convicted in U.S.
district court. That's, again, because terrorism is,
in fact, a federal criminal offense.
Don't forget also that American citizen Jose Padilla
was ultimately indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and
sentenced for terrorism, in a U.S. district court.
Those are just a few examples showing reality:
Terrorism has long been a crime listed in the U.S.
Code.
The problem occurred on 9/11, when Americans permitted
President Bush to get away with treating the 9/11
attacks as an act of war. But they weren't, any more
than the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center constituted an act of war … or Timothy
McVeigh's terrorist attack on the federal building in
Oklahoma City … or the Unibomber's acts of terrorism …
or any other act of terrorism. Again, terrorism is a
federal criminal offense, which is why accused
terrorists are indicted and prosecuted in federal
district court.
Once Bush was permitted to get away with labeling his
"war on terrorism" a real war, like World War II, he
decreed that he now possessed the extraordinary powers
associated with a military commander-in-chief, which
necessarily includes killing enemy soldiers. In the
war on terrorism, he said, the terrorists are the
enemy soldiers or "enemy combatants." In war, it's
legal to kill the enemy.
Bush's position was fully endorsed by President Obama.
It will also undoubtedly be fully endorsed by Hillary
Clinton if she is elected president four years from
now.
Equally important, both Bush and Obama have always
emphasized that in the war on terrorism, the entire
world is the battlefield. That includes the United
States. Therefore, it logically follows that whatever
powers Bush and Obama claim, as a wartime commander in
chief, to kill people overseas extends to the United
States. Again, in the war on terrorism, as U.S.
officials have never ceased to remind us, the entire
world is the battlefield. At the risk of belaboring
the obvious, the entire world includes the United
States.
Thus, there can be no doubt whatsoever that President
Obama claims the authority to assassinate the enemy
not only abroad but also right here in the United
States. After all, ask yourself: why would he say that
he lacks the authority to wage war here in the United
States when the United States is part of the worldwide
battlefield in the global war on terrorism?
Eric Holder's initial statements confirm that
position. Saying that the president isn't currently
planning to assassinate Americans isn't the same thing
as saying that the president lacks the legal authority
to assassinate Americans. Instead, it's saying the
exact opposite. It's saying that while the president
does, in fact, have the authority to assassinate
Americans, he's simply not choosing to exercise that
authority at the present time. However, if there is
another major terrorist attack on American soil or
some other big crisis, then, as Holder makes clear,
all bets are off and the president might well expand
his assassinations to American terrorists operating
within the United States.
What about Holder's supplemental letter read yesterday
by White House Press Secretary Carney? A careful
reading of it reveals that it's simply a clever device
to obfuscate Obama's real position. It's saying that
the president lacks the authority to use a drone to
assassinate an innocent American—i.e., an American
"not engaged in combat on American soil."
But neither Bush nor Obama have ever claimed the
authority to assassinate innocent Americans. The
authority they have always claimed has been to
assassinate guilty Americans (and guilty
foreigners)—that is, those people who are guilty of
being terrorists.
Well, guess who decides whether a person is a
terrorist. You got it! The president makes that
determination. And once he decides that a person is a
terrorist in his global "war on terrorism," that's the
end of the discussion. The assassination is carried
out by his loyal military and intelligence forces, and
that's the end of the matter. Under our post-9/11
system of government, neither the president nor the
military nor the CIA is required to explain, justify,
or even acknowledge the assassination.
Senator Paul deserves credit for flushing the
president and his minions out into the open. But make
no mistake about it: While the president is not
currently assassinating Americans on American soil
(American citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old
son Abdulrahman were assassinated in Yemen) or even
rounding them up and transporting them to
concentration camps or military dungeons, as he did
with Jose Padilla, the reality is that under our
system of government, he now has the power to do so.
As a practical matter, all that Obama needs is a good
crisis for him to remove the sword from the sheath.
But when that type of sword hangs over a nation, even
when it is within the sheath, there is no possible way
to consider that a free society. That's a society
whose ruler is wielding powers that characterize the
greatest tyrannies in history.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of
The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and
raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in
economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law
degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial
attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an
adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where
he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger
left the practice of law to become director of
programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He
has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio
stations all across the country as well as on Fox
News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he
appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew
Napolitano's show Freedom Watch. View these interviews
at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him
email.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments