Krauthammer Wrong On This: "Outside American Soil, The Constitution Does Not Rule"
He was going after Rand Paul, writes Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian:
That Paul became the first US Senator on the Senate floor to utter the name "Abdulrahaman Awlaki" - the 16-year-old US-born citizen killed by a US drone in Yemen - bolsters Krauthammer's claim that the Paul filibuster was about more than just the use of force on US soil, but rather posed a challenge to the War on Terror premises generally. That is precisely why Krauthammer - along with all other neocons and, notably, many Democratic Party Obama-supporters - are desperate to discredit the Paul filibuster and the sentiments it stoked: regardless of Paul's motives, the filibuster called into question both the wisdom and legality of the entire Endless War approach to Terrorism.But to discredit this, Krauthammer makes a claim about the US Constitution that is so patently false as to be retraction-worthy. He writes (emphasis added):
"Now we're talking about a larger, more controversial issue: the killing-by-drone in Yemen of al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki. Outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule, no matter how much Paul would like it to."
Greenwald points out:
Think about what it would mean if Krauthammer's claim were true: does anyone think it would be constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment for the US government to wait until an American critic of the Pentagon travels on vacation to London and then kill him, or to bomb a bureau of the New York Times located in Paris in retaliation for a news article it disliked, or to indefinitely detain with no trial an American who travels to Beijing or Lima or Oslo and who is suspected of committing a crime?
Greenwald supports this further at the link.
What I don't support is the "War on Terror" that has us leaving a trail of American soldiers' bodies in the Middle East and has us sending our tax dollars to try to bribe countries whose cultures don't support democracy in the slightest into becoming democracies.
If you know anything about Islam, you know Muslim cultures do not provide a fertile bed -- or any bed -- for free expression, freedom of religion, and the like. Just ask all those people in Iran now on trial for being Christian. (Though the state charged them with things that obfuscate that a little.)
via @jayrosen_nyu
If the Constitution doesn't constrain U.S. citizens outside of the U.S., then why did I waste all that time in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act training classes?
Cousin Dave at March 18, 2013 6:45 AM
Dave, the Constitution's purpose, inside or outside the borders, isn't so much to "constrain US citizens" as it is to constrain the US government. Krauthammer and his ilk desperately want it not to apply to people like al-Awlaki, and I suspect that somewhere in their semi-conscious minds, they're thinking that a guy with a name like that isn't a "real American" anyway. If the Obama Administration had drone-assassinated a guy from Wisconsin named Joe Swenson, they'd be going through the roof, no matter what he'd been doing.
Even if he were a Packers fan.
Grey Ghost at March 18, 2013 7:04 AM
As much as I hate it -- I believe that if the individual is not engaged in active combat, they should have a due process system before a capture or kill order is issued for them.
Such as Adam Gadahn has been indicted for treason. That makes him a valid target. But if the president can say take me out because I flew to Saudi Arabia for a vacation and unknowingly had dinner in the same restaurant as some terrorist on the same night makes me a valid target. How the hell did I know?
Now if I have a gun in my hands and on that side of a firefight, I'm a valid target. But otherwise there should be some sort of judicial review.
Jim P. at March 18, 2013 7:36 AM
Are we sure of the context?
Because other people and governments DON'T care about a Constitution.
I mean, even less than our own.
Radwaste at March 18, 2013 11:57 AM
@Radwaste: The high road, man, ya gotta take the high road.
If the US government doesn't respect the rule of law, then how is it different from any other petty dictatorship or police state.
More cynically: Since the US government in fact does not respect the rule of law, it is not any different from any other police state. The government uses the Constitution as a fig leaf when its convenient. Just like dictators are always democratically re-elected.
The DHS is buying armaments, including APCs. Who are they expecting to fight? The police state is here.
a_random_guy at March 18, 2013 12:43 PM
When you're touristing in another country, you are under their laws, not ours.
Ask the illegals who come to our country and drop a kid as insurance so they can stay. That child could even run for President one day.
Patrick at March 18, 2013 4:00 PM
This is great news. Now expats don't have to pay American taxes!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 19, 2013 8:26 AM
Leave a comment