Awaiting answer on drones
A major benefit of the U.S Constitution is that it limits the federal government to 17 “enumerated powers,” as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall called them. The powers are listed in Article I, Section 8; and “enumerated,” obviously, means not infinite.
Unfortunately, presidents over the years have stretched the meaning of “enumerated.” Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama have expanded presidential war powers.
This is manifested in the U.S. Senate confirmation struggle over John O. Brennan, the president’s nominee to become the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Brennan has continued Obama’s policy of stonewalling on whether the government could employ missile-firing unmanned aircraft to kill, without trial, U.S. citizens on American soil.
In drone attacks, directed, so far, at suspected terrorists in foreign countries, the president, advised by his aides, effectively is judge, jury and executioner. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, brought up a key question. She asked Brennan whether any president could, by his authority alone, attack Americans here at home. Brennan replied that President Obama “has not carried out” such attacks and “has no intention of doing so.”
In a Feb. 20 letter to Brennan, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., wrote, “The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored.” After all, intentions can change, by Obama or a successor.
“That amount of authority should not be invested in the president alone,” Benjamin H. Friedman told us; he’s a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He said that the American Revolution was fought to end the arbitrary executive authority of King George III.
NBC News this month revealed a confidential Justice Department memo contending that targeted killings, including those of American citizens, can be undertaken even if the government does not “have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” in the memo’s words.
Friedman said, “It’s endless authority that’s being claimed, which ought to be disturbing to people.”
What Congress needs to do, Friedman said, is to reassert its own authority by “legislating to define the boundaries of the war against al-Qaida,” the terrorist group. “It should be specific about which country and group” would be considered enemies. Congress also should consider a special court to approve targets for killing, so at least those lethal decisions are being made by more than a single person. Friedman also said such a court could be dangerous if it’s only a partial measure to check presidential power. He also said potential victims of the strikes, or the families of the dead, might be given recourse to the courts to attempt to prove the target’s innocence.
On American soil, it seems obvious to us that the president and Brennan should confirm that such killings are illegal. Otherwise, the government eventually could arbitrarily kill even suspected common criminals. If Brennan does not answer that question adequately, his nomination should be rejected by the Senate.
— From the Orange County (Calif.) Register
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.