Another taboo bites the dust
by digby
As I listen to the Democratic defenders on cable news talk about the "hypothetical" case in which another 9/11 happens and the president has to use military force on American soil, I am reminded of the sick feeling in my gut when I realized that a taboo had been breached on torture. I cannot remember a time in my life when this question would have even been broached, much less defended by virtually anyone. Even the McCarthy era stopped at character assassination. This is a sea change in our understanding of the power of the presidency --- especially since the "War" they are using as a rationale for this unprecedented power grab is a war that they also say has no borders and no end.
This is not a tough question, it really isn't. If the president has the power to order the assassination of people on American soil the constitution does not say what we've always thought it said. The country is awash in militarized law enforcement with every known technology. There is little reason to worry that they couldn't get an arrest warrant for a real threat. The idea that the president should have the power to override these guarantees basically says that they no longer acknowledge one of the fundamental rationales for the constitution.
"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.
That's not really working out is it?
I'm no fan of Rand Paul, but I'm glad he's filibustering this the old fashioned way:
Paul and his allies don't have the 41 votes they need to block a cloture vote (translation: how the vast majority of modern-day filibusters happen) that is the only thing standing in the way of John Brennan's confirmation as the new director of the CIA. That said, Senate rules and decorum allow the senator to keep speaking for as long as he chooses, and as long as he's doing that, the upper chamber remains in a holding pattern.
Of course, it's only been two hours so far, so Paul has a long way to go before he even approaches the talking-filibuster legends of old. Strom Thurmond once spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to the Senate archives. If nothing else, Paul's throwback speech is sure to capture the attention of the Beltway, bringing more scrutiny to the Obama administration's drone policy.
Unfortunately, now that we've removed the taboo against a president ordering assassinations on American soil it would appear to me that most people will probably agree with it and "their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." Let's hope that someday the courts will weigh in on the side of the constitution. But as with torture I don't think we'll ever be quite the same.
.