I was reading the articles about senators McCain and Graham criticizing senator Paul for his filibuster and it occured to me that these two guys really just don't get it. Graham actually said that Paul's question (which is also a question of many other senators) as to whether or not president Obama claims the power to use drones strikes against American citizens inside the USA who are deemed by the White House to be dangerous is "not worthy of an answer". Graham thinks the question is ridiculous.
I used to ask questions for a living for many years as a trial attorney. Graham ought to understand that no question, even one he thinks ridiculous, is unworthy of an answer. Sure, we would all expect that when the Attorney General gets asked if the president can unleash a drone strike on an American in this country because he is considered dangerous, that the AG would respond by clearly saying "NO!" After all, we have police, and prosecutors and courts which are supposed to arrest Americans and determine if they are breaking the law. We do not give the president the power to decide whether or not to kill an American because he is considered a threat by the president. Attorney General Holder, however, did not give the expected answer to this question. Instead he talked about current intentions and expectations. In Washinton talk, Holder refused to answer whether or not the president has the power to order the death of Americans right here in the USA. Look, Holder's answer does not mean that Obama is planning drone strikes next week in Salt Lake City. Nor does it mean that Obama is planning ever to launch such an attack. But one thing is clear: Holder's answer left the door wide open to that interpretation. Even when Holder was asked again about the president's powers to launch such strikes, he would not answer. Only after being pushed over and over again by the senate committee would Holder finally say that his real answer was "no, the president does not have that power." By the time of that answer, senator Paul was already speaking on the senate floor.
Congratulations to Paul for forcing this issue to the forefront. The rights of Americans are not unimportant or ridiculous.
I used to ask questions for a living for many years as a trial attorney. Graham ought to understand that no question, even one he thinks ridiculous, is unworthy of an answer. Sure, we would all expect that when the Attorney General gets asked if the president can unleash a drone strike on an American in this country because he is considered dangerous, that the AG would respond by clearly saying "NO!" After all, we have police, and prosecutors and courts which are supposed to arrest Americans and determine if they are breaking the law. We do not give the president the power to decide whether or not to kill an American because he is considered a threat by the president. Attorney General Holder, however, did not give the expected answer to this question. Instead he talked about current intentions and expectations. In Washinton talk, Holder refused to answer whether or not the president has the power to order the death of Americans right here in the USA. Look, Holder's answer does not mean that Obama is planning drone strikes next week in Salt Lake City. Nor does it mean that Obama is planning ever to launch such an attack. But one thing is clear: Holder's answer left the door wide open to that interpretation. Even when Holder was asked again about the president's powers to launch such strikes, he would not answer. Only after being pushed over and over again by the senate committee would Holder finally say that his real answer was "no, the president does not have that power." By the time of that answer, senator Paul was already speaking on the senate floor.
Congratulations to Paul for forcing this issue to the forefront. The rights of Americans are not unimportant or ridiculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment