Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
Glenn Greenwald: Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibusterhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives
Let's focus on Greenwald's debunk in stages:
(1) Progressives and their "empathy gap"
The US government's continuous killing, due-process-free imprisonment, and other rights abuses under the War on Terror banner has affected one group far more than any other: Muslims and, increasingly, American Muslims. Politically, this has been the key fact enabling this to endure. Put simply, if you're not Muslim, it's very easy to dismiss, minimize or mock these issues because you can easily tell yourself that they don't affect you or your family and therefore there is no reason to care. And since the vast, vast majority of Democratic politicians and progressive media commentators are not Muslim, one continuously sees this mentality shaping reaction to these issues.
<...>
The US government's continuous killing, due-process-free imprisonment, and other rights abuses under the War on Terror banner has affected one group far more than any other: Muslims and, increasingly, American Muslims. Politically, this has been the key fact enabling this to endure. Put simply, if you're not Muslim, it's very easy to dismiss, minimize or mock these issues because you can easily tell yourself that they don't affect you or your family and therefore there is no reason to care. And since the vast, vast majority of Democratic politicians and progressive media commentators are not Muslim, one continuously sees this mentality shaping reaction to these issues.
<...>
Dear Glenn, Rand Paul is a hypocrite and an asshole.
Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/
Sen. Rand Paul: Civil Rights Act Was Overreach Because "I Can't Have A Cigar Bar Anymore"
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201201090003
I got your "empathy" right here:
So You're Offended by the Government's Ability To Execute Americans Without Due Process?
by Grizzard
Really? You are?
Well it's nice to have you on the team. Because when I watched Rand Paul's little party, and when I saw the support for "due process rights" coming from all corners of the Internet, I had to shake my head just a little bit. While these people are busy drumming up emotional responses by invoking fear about highly unlikely scenarios involving drones and unsuspecting Americans, thousands of Americans are denied their due process every single day.
They're poor. And they can't afford an attorney. And no, they're not being struck by a fatal shot from an evil drone. But they are put in prison - and in some cases put to death - with a sort of due process that only someone as artificial as Rand Paul could call adequate.
If you think Americans should be given their constitutional rights before the government puts them to death, then we're on the same side. Except, of course, that we're not. You see, Rand - your filibuster was a sideshow and a display of political opportunism. What I and many other people work for every single day is the protection of those rights you're using for political gain.
The situation that led to Rand Paul's filibuster is purely hypothetical as far as we know. But where was he, and where were all of his supporters, when a Texas man named George McFarland was sentenced to death for a robbery-murder in the 1990s? You see, McFarland had quite the dream team of lawyers for his capital trial. When I say dream team, I'm speaking in the most literal sense. His lawyer was dreaming, and not daydreaming. McFarland's appellate lawyers asked for a new trial, arguing that his sleeping lawyer deprived him of the fair trial guaranteed by the sixth amendment. The appeals court callously noted that the constitution guarantees the right to counsel, but it doesn't say that said counsel has to be awake.
Demagogue all you want about black helicopters and unmanned drones. Until you're concerned about the rights of people like McFarland, I'm not impressed.
- more -
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/09/1192841/-So-You-re-Offended-by-the-Government-s-Ability-To-Execute-Americans-Without-Due-Process
by Grizzard
Really? You are?
Well it's nice to have you on the team. Because when I watched Rand Paul's little party, and when I saw the support for "due process rights" coming from all corners of the Internet, I had to shake my head just a little bit. While these people are busy drumming up emotional responses by invoking fear about highly unlikely scenarios involving drones and unsuspecting Americans, thousands of Americans are denied their due process every single day.
They're poor. And they can't afford an attorney. And no, they're not being struck by a fatal shot from an evil drone. But they are put in prison - and in some cases put to death - with a sort of due process that only someone as artificial as Rand Paul could call adequate.
If you think Americans should be given their constitutional rights before the government puts them to death, then we're on the same side. Except, of course, that we're not. You see, Rand - your filibuster was a sideshow and a display of political opportunism. What I and many other people work for every single day is the protection of those rights you're using for political gain.
The situation that led to Rand Paul's filibuster is purely hypothetical as far as we know. But where was he, and where were all of his supporters, when a Texas man named George McFarland was sentenced to death for a robbery-murder in the 1990s? You see, McFarland had quite the dream team of lawyers for his capital trial. When I say dream team, I'm speaking in the most literal sense. His lawyer was dreaming, and not daydreaming. McFarland's appellate lawyers asked for a new trial, arguing that his sleeping lawyer deprived him of the fair trial guaranteed by the sixth amendment. The appeals court callously noted that the constitution guarantees the right to counsel, but it doesn't say that said counsel has to be awake.
Demagogue all you want about black helicopters and unmanned drones. Until you're concerned about the rights of people like McFarland, I'm not impressed.
- more -
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/09/1192841/-So-You-re-Offended-by-the-Government-s-Ability-To-Execute-Americans-Without-Due-Process
Greenwald:
(2) Whether domestic assassinations are imminent is irrelevant to the debate
The primary means of mocking Paul's concerns was to deride the notion that Obama is about to unleash drone attacks and death squads on US soil aimed at Americans. But nobody, including Paul, suggested that was the case. To focus on that attack is an absurd strawman, a deliberate distraction from the real issues, a total irrelevancy...First, the reason this question matters so much - can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? - is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration's theories of executive power are. Once you embrace the premises of everything they do in this area - we are a Nation at War; the entire globe is the battlefield; the president is vested with the unchecked power to use force against anyone he accuses of involvement with Terrorism - then there is no cogent, coherent way to say that the president lacks the power to assassinate even US citizens on US soil. That conclusion is the necessary, logical outcome of the premises that have been embraced. That's why it is so vital to ask that.
<...>
The primary means of mocking Paul's concerns was to deride the notion that Obama is about to unleash drone attacks and death squads on US soil aimed at Americans. But nobody, including Paul, suggested that was the case. To focus on that attack is an absurd strawman, a deliberate distraction from the real issues, a total irrelevancy...First, the reason this question matters so much - can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? - is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration's theories of executive power are. Once you embrace the premises of everything they do in this area - we are a Nation at War; the entire globe is the battlefield; the president is vested with the unchecked power to use force against anyone he accuses of involvement with Terrorism - then there is no cogent, coherent way to say that the president lacks the power to assassinate even US citizens on US soil. That conclusion is the necessary, logical outcome of the premises that have been embraced. That's why it is so vital to ask that.
<...>
Um, bullshit!
The President is advocating a drone strike program in America. All we have to compare it with is the drone strike program overseas.
http://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/309465276863365120
http://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/309465276863365120
Greenwald:
(3) Holder did not disclaim the power to assassinate on US soil
Defenders of the Obama administration now insist that this entire controversy has been resolved by a letter written to Paul by Attorney General Eric Holder, in which Holder wrote: "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." Despite Paul's declaration of victory, this carefully crafted statement tells us almost nothing about the actual controversy.
As Law Professor Ryan Goodman wrote yesterday in the New York Times, "the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in combat." That phrase - "engaged in combat" - does not only include people who are engaged in violence at the time you detain or kill them. It includes a huge array of people who we would not normally think of, using common language, as being "engaged in combat".
<...>
Defenders of the Obama administration now insist that this entire controversy has been resolved by a letter written to Paul by Attorney General Eric Holder, in which Holder wrote: "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." Despite Paul's declaration of victory, this carefully crafted statement tells us almost nothing about the actual controversy.
As Law Professor Ryan Goodman wrote yesterday in the New York Times, "the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in combat." That phrase - "engaged in combat" - does not only include people who are engaged in violence at the time you detain or kill them. It includes a huge array of people who we would not normally think of, using common language, as being "engaged in combat".
<...>
From Goodman's piece:
“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 attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., wrote to Mr. Paul. “The answer to that question is no.”
<...>
What, exactly, does the Obama administration mean by “engaged in combat”? The extraordinary secrecy of this White House makes the answer difficult to know. We have some clues, and they are troubling.
<...>
Is there any reason to believe that military drones will soon be hovering over Manhattan, aiming to kill Americans believed to be involved in terrorist financing? No.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/opinion/the-drone-question-obama-hasnt-answered.html
<...>
What, exactly, does the Obama administration mean by “engaged in combat”? The extraordinary secrecy of this White House makes the answer difficult to know. We have some clues, and they are troubling.
<...>
Is there any reason to believe that military drones will soon be hovering over Manhattan, aiming to kill Americans believed to be involved in terrorist financing? No.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/opinion/the-drone-question-obama-hasnt-answered.html
So the answer really is "no," but "no" is not good enough? I mean, people are building straw men on top of straw men.
Still, the leap the Goodman makes is gigantic. He points to a Bush-era list of Guantanamo detainees, and then states:
One could argue that that definition applied solely to prolonged detention, not to targeting for a drone strike. But who’s to say if the administration believes in such a distinction?
Does the fact that they were captured offer any clues? The author then goes on to cite Kerry's excellent report to conflate operations in Afghanistan with hypotheticals in the United States. There is a war ongoing in Afghanistan. From Kerry's report:
The Rules of Engagement, known as ROE, govern the conduct of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, spelling out when and how much force can be used on the battlefield. The precise rules are classified, but two U.S. generals in Afghanistan said that the ROE and the internationally recognized Law of War have been interpreted to allow them to put drug traffickers with proven links to the insurgency on a kill list, called the joint integrated prioritized target list. The military places no restrictions on the use of force with these selected targets, which means they can be killed or captured on the battlefield; it does not, however, authorize targeted assassinations away from the battlefield. The generals said standards for getting on the list require two verifiable human sources and substantial additional evidence. Currently, there are roughly 50 major traffickers who contribute funds to the insurgency on the target list.
http://1.usa.gov/XhxUwc
http://1.usa.gov/XhxUwc
Hey, there's a definition of "engaged in combat": battlefield. I mean, last I checked there is no civil war ongoing in the United States.
Get Kerry's report out to the press. It's got some great information about the war, the ROE, and the next steps in Afghanistan. Of course, these should have been followed when the report was issued. Maybe we'd have been out of there two years ago.
Now, what did Paul's publicity stunt do to change the actual drone policy? The administration answered a strawman question, and as Eugene Robinson put it:
<...>
Paul focused narrowly on the simple question of whether “the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
<...>
Hours after Paul finished his filibuster, Holder finally closed that door. “It has come to my attention,” he wrote Paul, “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.”
So that’s settled. But the overwhelming majority of drone attacks target foreign nationals in foreign countries, and this is where the moral calculus gets harder.
<...>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-rand-paul-makes-the-right-call-with-filibuster/2013/03/07/b66732fc-876a-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html
Paul focused narrowly on the simple question of whether “the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
<...>
Hours after Paul finished his filibuster, Holder finally closed that door. “It has come to my attention,” he wrote Paul, “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.”
So that’s settled. But the overwhelming majority of drone attacks target foreign nationals in foreign countries, and this is where the moral calculus gets harder.
<...>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-rand-paul-makes-the-right-call-with-filibuster/2013/03/07/b66732fc-876a-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html
Paul's focus was narrow by design. People got roped into this nonsense, and now "that’s settled."
Because of Paul's high-profile theatrics, that is what the majority of Americans now believe. The question of whether or not the President approves of targeting and killing Americans is now moot.
His filibuster served absolutely no purpose in terms of the actual drone policy, and no doubt Paul's latest bullshit proposal will garner support from across the spectrum. I look forward to Greenwald's comment on Paul's drone bill:
GOP Senators Introduce Pointless Drone Bill
By Adam Serwer
Not wanting to take Attorney General Eric Holder's word for it that the US government won't be sending deadly flying robots to kill its own citizens on American soil, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced a bill that would "prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat."
The bill all but disarms the US government, leaving it with few options for lethal force against citizens other than guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force.
Unless you're not in the United States, or you're an "imminent threat." In that case, the government can drone away.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/gop-senators-introduce-bill-banning-domestic-drone-assassinations
By Adam Serwer
Not wanting to take Attorney General Eric Holder's word for it that the US government won't be sending deadly flying robots to kill its own citizens on American soil, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced a bill that would "prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat."
The bill all but disarms the US government, leaving it with few options for lethal force against citizens other than guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force.
Unless you're not in the United States, or you're an "imminent threat." In that case, the government can drone away.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/gop-senators-introduce-bill-banning-domestic-drone-assassinations
Use of drones to kill Americans not OK "if they do not represent an imminent threat."
Killing Americans who don't pose an "imminent threat" OK if the weapons of choice are "guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force."
Use of drones to kill anyone outside the United States OK.
Unfortunately, people are now focused on Paul and his proposal. After all the hype they will believe it's the solution.
Should the Senate pass the Cruz, Paul drone bill?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022480661
Rand Paul's PR Sham
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022476740
Sorry for the deletes, problems posting.
99 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to truth2power (Reply #20)
Sid
Glen Greenwald writes a timely and important column for a respected news outlet
SidDithers writes UNREC and 
for DU
Sid
posting a picture of Sean Penn playing a character with an intellectual handicap.
Stay classy. 
Nice Edit.
Here's the picture the posted edited out.
Sid
Apology accepted.
Sid
"You agree with John Bolton on the subject of Executive authority in killing US citizens via drone strikes. Whether you can bring yourself to say it that way or not doesn't matter. "
...now you're going to insist I agree with someone I disagree with?
Does this mean you agree with Limbaugh?
Fuck John Bolton.
