In the wake of a desire for filibuster reform, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky drops a historic 13 hour filibuster on the vote of John Brennan as the new director of the CIA. Brennan has been the President Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser for the past four years. He has also been President's most vocal supporter of the U.S. military's drone attack program.
In April of 2012, Brennan defended the drone program stating that it was legal under the Authorization for Use of Military Force bill passed after the September 11 attacks. He also stated that there was nothing within international law banning the use of remotely piloted planes for the purpose of using lethal force against the U.S.'s enemies "outside of an active battlefield when the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat."
This defense, while generally approved within the U.S., was not well received world wide. Most countries of world disapprove of the program. Yet the program does exactly what it is designed to do and it does it well. It defeats the enemies of the U.S. while keeping U.S. troops from getting killed. It is a phenomenal use of technology to achieve the U.S.'s goals. So what is the problem?
Why would anyone disapprove of technology that keeps our soldiers alive? The answer is two fold. First, there is no due process for the targets of drone strikes. Once you get on the military's kill list, there is no way to wave a surrender flag or a habeas corpus trial by jury. It is simply execution. Second, there is collateral damage. There are innocent civilians and children who have been killed by these strikes. Yet there will be no justice for the innocent people killed because this is war.
Yes, the U.S. is at war with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Casualties of war are going to happen. However, this can be viewed as a different issue and brings me to a third question that is being asked. U.S. soldiers involved in drone strikes are not physically there for combat. They do their duties and they go home to their wives and children. Effectively, they are removed from the guilt of their actions -- not completely, but physically. Should U.S. soldiers be physically in combat areas to make decisions that have potentially strong moral outcomes? Sure, the blame for mistakes are placed upon their superior officers. This is how it should be, but will that change our moral stance on war time combat?
Lastly, we don't know how many casualties of war the drone program has produced. The Obama Administration has stated that the casualties are very minimal and that the program is extremely effective. This is under scrutiny however, as there are conflicting reports as to who is considered a combatant.
In light of these issues and a growing drone program on U.S. soil, Senator Rand Paul wrote a letter to Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General. The letter asked for clarification on whether the President has authorization to use the drone program on U.S. soil with lethal force. Holder, in response, stated that he would not rule out the possibility, in an extreme circumstance, that the President could use lethal force with a drone on U.S. soil. This, in turn, lead to the 13 hour filibuster of the President's number one supporter of U.S. drone strikes for the position of director of the CIA.
So now we look at the last issue. Aren't filibusters being abused in a way that is counterproductive? The general idea behind a filibuster is to block a vote to continue debate or bring light to an existing topic. There is nothing wrong with this idea. However, many senators have been using the "silent filibuster" as means to curb a vote or to gain minority support without taking to the stand and speaking.
Did Senator Rand Paul abuse the filibuster to achieve his goals? Many politicians and political commentators are viewing Paul's filibuster as exactly what the filibuster is meant to do. He did not remain silent, he spoke for 13 hours. He got public notice of an issue that he felt needed to be addressed. In the end, Brennan was still voted into office as the CIA's director. However, Paul got what he was asking for.
In a response to the filibuster, Eric Holder clarified that the President could not use a drone to kill American's outside of an emergency situation. And now U.S. citizens are faced with re looking at the drone program as a moral use of combat inside and outside American soil. It is a good question, where do you stand on this? And how will you vote in future elections in regard to it?
M.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment