ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
Suggested Deviants
Suggested Collections
You Might Like…
Featured in Groups
Description
Please disseminate widely, thank you! This does not give permission to alter or claim credit for this re-mixed work, for which I retain all copyrights. The original illustration is in the public domain.
If you disagree with the views expressed here, please be sure to read my Policy Statement BEFORE you post: [link]
After Rand Paul pulled an old-fashioned "talk till you drop" 13 hour filibuster on the Senate floor yesterday, effectively stalling the Brennan nomination, the White House capitulated and ordered Attorney General Holder to send a letter stating that the Administration does not believe that it has the authority to use drones to kill American citizens at home, unless, of course, they're involved in armed combat against the United States. They had that authority already, so that's no big deal from a civil liberties point of view. Next step: outlawing the use of drones for surveillance nationwide.
If you disagree with the views expressed here, please be sure to read my Policy Statement BEFORE you post: [link]
After Rand Paul pulled an old-fashioned "talk till you drop" 13 hour filibuster on the Senate floor yesterday, effectively stalling the Brennan nomination, the White House capitulated and ordered Attorney General Holder to send a letter stating that the Administration does not believe that it has the authority to use drones to kill American citizens at home, unless, of course, they're involved in armed combat against the United States. They had that authority already, so that's no big deal from a civil liberties point of view. Next step: outlawing the use of drones for surveillance nationwide.
Image size
820x1094px 353.41 KB
© 2013 - 2024 poasterchild
Comments6
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Then again, Professor Ryan Goodman points out that Holder's "no" probably means "yes" if you examine what the administration means by the phrase "engaged in combat": [link]
This is the problem: precedent. I think as a rule civil libertarians are concerned not so much about the application of deadly force by drone against an al-Qaeda terrorist, but we are very concerned that the due process protections of the Constitution for American citizens be strengthened, not eroded, by a central government with incredible resources at its disposal that can, and have, been used for political suppression and repression. Governments, especially those clothed in legalism, like to operate on the basis of precedent since that seems to legitimate their actions. We don't want to permit the government to establish any precedents that would later be used to legitimate the use of military technology to surveil or repress lawful assembly, petition, and speech, even if -- especially if -- the government doesn't happen to like the particular content of that speech.
This is the problem: precedent. I think as a rule civil libertarians are concerned not so much about the application of deadly force by drone against an al-Qaeda terrorist, but we are very concerned that the due process protections of the Constitution for American citizens be strengthened, not eroded, by a central government with incredible resources at its disposal that can, and have, been used for political suppression and repression. Governments, especially those clothed in legalism, like to operate on the basis of precedent since that seems to legitimate their actions. We don't want to permit the government to establish any precedents that would later be used to legitimate the use of military technology to surveil or repress lawful assembly, petition, and speech, even if -- especially if -- the government doesn't happen to like the particular content of that speech.