Drones, Due Process, and Standing with Rand

Helen Shibut

I don’t always support Rand Paul. Like many other libertarians, I was extremely disappointed by his endorsement of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid in 2012. I also think he should take the focus off his pro-life position, for the good of the larger liberty movement. But when it comes to his nearly thirteen hour filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination for director of the CIA, I stand with Rand.

Leading up to his filibuster and throughout the long hours in which he talked, Paul repeatedly demanded that the Obama administration affirm that it does not have the constitutional authority to order drone strikes on American citizens on American soil. As Paul said, this should have been an easy concession. Of course the president cannot have Americans killed without due process—stating a charge against the accused, and granting him legal representation and a trial by jury.

Speaking on the behalf of the administration, Attorney General Eric Holder blustered about the unlikelihood of drone strikes within the United States and promised that such strikes haven’t occurred yet. Oh, good. Why couldn’t Holder just say, “No, the government cannot shoot down Americans with drones inside the country”? Probably because he and many other government officials believe they can do just that.

This isn’t a partisan issue. Large majorities of both Republican and Democratic elected officials resent any attempt by their constituents and their Constitution to restrain their powers. But public pressure and the fear of not getting reelected can motivate these politicians to protect the rights of all Americans guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. On the issue of drones and due process, I encourage everyone to stand with Rand. Remind your representatives that they work for you, and that you don’t want to hear drones buzzing around your town. 

Ron Paul Visits Lexington, VA

Helen Shibut (photos courtesy of Joshua Huffman)

            Yesterday, I had the opportunity to see Dr. Ron Paul speak to an audience of about six hundred people at Washington & Lee University in his first public speech since he retired from Congress. The former Congressman from Texas spoke about his concern for the United States as most of our leaders continue to push us down a path of unsustainable debt and perpetual war. But despite the problems we face, Dr. Paul professed optimism for the future, repeating his famous refrain that “freedom is popular” and pointing out the growing enthusiasm of young people who want to take the country in a different direction. Dr. Paul also joked about being relieved to be outside of Washington D.C. and onto more friendly ground, referencing his plans to tour college campuses around the country. After his speech, he took audience questions about the Federal Reserve, the Republican and Libertarian parties, and abortion. 

Glenn Greenwald on (Lack of) Equality Under the Law

Helen Shibut

This past week I read Glenn Greenwald’s book “With Liberty and Justice for Some,” a scathing attack on the devolution of basic rule of law in the United States, which has accelerated enormously under the Bush 43 and Obama administrations. Greenwald pointed to former President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon as the watershed moment for elite immunity to prosecution in America. Things only got worse from there as elites in both government and the private sector were granted retroactive immunity for “violating the privacy rights of their customers and committing clear felonies during George W. Bush’s administration (64). Not only are most cases of complaints about warrantless wiretapping and other kinds of government spying on its own citizens totally ignored, those that go to court are almost always doomed. The plaintiffs in such cases are ordinary Americans without access to millions of dollars to pay for top lawyers. The defendants, the telecom companies that assist the government in its illegal acts, have access not only to expensive lawyers, but also to the law itself. Elites in the banking industry can expect the same preferential treatment, because many of them were once in government, and will probably continue to move back and forth between the private and public sectors. Though Greenwald sees deregulation of the financial sector as the ultimate evil created by this too-cozy relationship, I see a more clear connection between “the political class’s loyalty and subservience to Wall Street” and the bailouts of big banks we’ve seen in the past few years.

But even Wall Street and the big telecoms aren’t as removed from basic justice under the law as members of the past two administrations. The Bush 43 administration authorized torture for suspected terrorists despite the fact that the methods they used were clear violations of both federal and international law. President Obama has shamelessly shielded Bush and his advisors from any kind of prosecution by saying that the torture perpetrated by the Bush regime is a state secret, and therefore too sensitive for the courts to hear. And both Bush and Obama have blatantly ignored the Bill of Rights by demanding the ability to indefinitely detain American citizens and anyone else suspected of terrorism, without charging them with a crime.

Greenwald’s book presents a frightening picture of how those in our government and their well-connected friends manage to stay out of legal hot water by rewriting the law for themselves. This situation is dangerous for the average American, who has no such privilege. In fact, the United States now imprisons a higher percentage of its people than any other country (that includes Russia, China, Rwanda, Cuba…). When the average person in America risks jail time for possession of small quantities of marijuana while the rich and powerful enjoy total immunity for felonies like torture, it’s time to reexamine our national identity and remind ourselves of the importance of equality under the law.