If Only Rand Paul Would Use His Filibuster Powers For Good Instead Of Evil

This week Kentucky Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul decided to have a thirteen hour, one-man circle jerk filibuster on the Senate floor in opposition of the nomination of John Brennan as the next CIA director until he got assurances from the White House that drones would not be used to target US citizens on US soil, you know because it's happening almost daily on our streets already.

This all stems from the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born expatriate who repeatedly called for jihad against the United States, had ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers, Fort Hood shooter Nadal Malik Hasan, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was elevated to regional commader in Al-Qaeda. Yes, the same Al-Qaeda which we are supposedly involved in a war against. Not what I would call a model US citizen, that al-Awlaki. Yet all these politicians are getting the vapors over this particular drone strike targeting someone that clearly was an enemy of the US, but since he was a US citizen the logical conclusion is that clearly it can happen here on American soil, even though it's never happened. And why would that be? Enter Rand Paul.

Paul sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to ask if the Obama Administration thought it was legal to use drones against American citizens on American soil. Holder responded with the following:

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.” 

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” 

“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.”

So, the answer: It's never happened, we have no intention of making it happen but hypothetically under the most extreme circumstances, it's possible. And the only thing Rand Paul focused on (as well as a lot of the media - you know, because controversy du jour) is the "it's possible" part to begin his fist shaking (and fundraising opportunity) outrage.

As David von Ebers writes, no one was worried about "the possibility" of military strikes on US soil under extreme circumstances when we were under attack.

"...the fact that the Bush Administration sent military aircraft – both armed and unarmed – into the skies on September 11 surprised exactly no one. As events were unfolding, and before anyone knew exactly who was responsible for the attacks, the President and the military were prepared to use lethal force to stop planes from hitting additional targets, even if it meant killing innocent American passengers, and regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the hijackers. 

If you paid any attention to the news coverage at the time, you knew this. And I suspect, like me, you didn’t object to it in the least. As much as I abhor nearly everything George W. Bush did as president, I can’t fault him or his military leaders for making that awful decision. What other choice did they have? If they’d had the opportunity to shoot down even one of those planes, they might have saved the lives of thousands of other innocent people. It’s an awful choice to have to make, but we expect presidents to make extraordinarily difficult choices in extraordinarily difficult circumstances... 

...Atty. Gen. Holder told Sen. Paul that the Obama Administration would do exactly what the Bush Administration attempted to do on September 11, 2001, in identical circumstances. Now I’m old and my memory is imperfect (although I did remember, quite clearly, that the Bush Administration scrambled fighter jets on 9/11), but try as I might to wrack my middle-aged brain, I recall exactly no controversy – as in none, zip, zero, nada – absolutely no controversy whatsoever following the Bush Administration’s attempt to use lethal military force that day. 

So you can understand my confusion. This is not a case where the Bush Administration expanded the powers of the presidency and the Obama Administration followed suit; instead, this is a situation where Pres. Bush’s actions were met with no controversy at the time because they were not controversial. What Pres. Bush did on 9/11 – ordering fighter pilots to take to the air, to shoot down hijacked airliners if necessary – appeared to everyone at the time to be right in the presidential wheelhouse, legally and constitutionally. Awful, yes. Illegal? Of course not."

Now, don't misunderstand. I think the usage of drones and who orders them and where are important issues. I think that their usage puts the US' moral creditability on the line (if we have any left to begin with). But it makes absolutely no difference to me whether the target is a US citizen or not. 

All these politicians wetting their diapers over the drone debate have framed the issue as a hypothetical attack on an American citizen, and the hypocrisy is astounding. What about those brown people we've been vaporizing "over there" with the drone program that we all knew about? Fuck them, what do we care about killing innocent civilians in a foreign land? Collateral damage. Wrong place, wrong time. Besides, they're probably jihad loving mooslims anyway, right?

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen and therefore and deserved a fair trial? But those 160 guys imprisoned in Guantanamo for years without benefit of trial - fuck those guys. And so says the rest of the Senate with their continual votes not to fund the closing of Gitmo. The only thing for which Rand Paul should be given credit is for actually using the filibuster as it was intended (instead of placing a cowardly, anonymous hold on a vote) even though all it amounted to was free publicity and some campaign cash as intended.

So Rand Paul, and Tea Party wingnut Ted Cruz and Poland Spring spokesman Marco Rubio who took the opportunity to ride Paul's coattails in the latest search for the 2016 spotlight, please spare me the crocodile tears of Constitutional rights on one drone terrorist target who also happened to be an American citizen. Until Congress sets trials for everyone in detention centers like Gitmo, they should just shut their cake holes.

School Districts Must Implement Multiple Intervention Programs for the Sake of Our Children, Parents, and Society

POSTED BY DESERT CRONE

This is the first post in a series on why the Dept. of Justice and Dept. of Education must do more than just end schools rules that expel students who misbehave and what school districts can do to keep kids in school.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced the launch of the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, a collaborative project between the Departments of Justice and Education that will address the “school-to-prison pipeline” and the disciplinary policies and practices that can push students out of school and into the justice system. The initiative aims to support good discipline practices to foster safe and productive learning environments in every classroom.

While I admire their initiative to keep kids in school, their action must be accompanied by multiple intervention programs. This is a very long post, so I do hope you will hang in there and read it in its entirety because I think it will be very enlightening.

First, to understand why I believe in interventions as an essential companion piece with ending expulsion, I’ll tell you a little bit about my life. I was a teacher for about 12 years when I attended a three-day training to help teachers identify students who have addiction issues. What I had to look at, however, during the training was my own alcoholism and addiction. I came home from the first day and told my husband I was an alcoholic and asked him to pour out all the booze, which he did. He said to me, “You damn well better be an alcoholic because I just poured out $300 worth of booze.” I discovered later that the Director of the Student Assistance System (SAS) put me and my girlfriend/drinking buddy in the training, knowing we were drunks and hoping the training would serve as an intervention. Well, damn him, it worked. We both celebrated our 25th sobriety birthday together in April.

It’s about this place in my story when folks congratulate me, but I will not take any credit for my recovery. My 25 years is due solely to my Higher Power and Alcoholics Anonymous. Prior to my epiphany, every Sunday my family dragged me to small liberal church, hangover and all. One Sunday morning I prayed to God for help with my drinking. I didn’t want to stop drinking, just stop the hangovers. Two days later I was in the training and one week later, almost dead, I was sitting in a treatment center saying, “Hi, I’m Desert Crone, and I’m an alcoholic. (Words of wisdom: Be careful for what you pray for and never ever pray for patience.)

Anyway, after the director resigned a few years later, I was appointed to his position. I left the classroom and ran the program for five years. Dealing with addicted kids and their broken families is physically and emotionally draining, so I eventually went back into the classroom, knowing my experience would make me a better, more compassionate and empathetic teacher. (BTW the first students I taught are now 56 years old. Eeeek!) When you have battled alcoholism, nothing much else scares you. So when I went back into the classroom, I was a loud, persistent advocate for students. I took on fellow teachers who weren’t teaching, principals, and school boards. After I retired, I was elected to the local school board where I continued my advocacy for students, My missions as a student advocate is one of the reasons I decided to write this post.

But I digress. I went all out in making the SAS a formidable program that served as many students as humanly possible. Sometimes I went all out with reckless abandon, which generally got me in all kinds of trouble. Looking back on my directorship, I realize now I probably went into it too new in my sobriety. Water under the bridge . . . .

To give you an example of what is possible within a school district, let me explain the financing. First, the district had the most amazing superintendent for whom I have ever worked. He taught me how to write grants so I was able to secure $500,000 dollars to run the program. Most came from state grants and Drug Free Schools, but a small portion came from the district budget and the training and consulting fees I charged other school districts. From 1987-1993 I trained aides, teachers, secretaries, custodians, and administrators from southern Colorado to NM districts and even Oklahoma. I charged $400/day plus expenses. I also trained almost every single staff person in our district over a period of five years.

My staff consisted of one secretary and a therapist, my friend who shares my sobriety birthday. All three of us were and still are in recovery. In AA we believe in sharing our experiences, strengths, and hopes, qualities that made us effective with kids and their parents. They always knew we were not critical of them because we were like them. (Of course, an SAS program can be capably run by people in recovery.) I was able to operate with a staff of two plus myself because we trained staff to assess and place students in support groups and facilitate groups. The SAS was a K-12 program in a school district with over 4000 students so running it with three people was an extraordinary challenge, but it can be done.

By the fifth year, the program had identified and placed 750 students in support groups, such as Children of Alcoholics, prevention, anger, rape victim, recovery, in-patient and out-patient programs, and parents in parent support groups, and multi-family therapy groups with their children. Also, we had implemented K-8 prevention curriculum and peer training in all secondary schools. Whew! What a task to keep those going, but we did we enthusiastic help from a majority of district staff. After the first year as director, drug use had dropped by 18%, the only NM district that actually showed a drop in drug use rather than an increase. The drop-out rate dropped from 17% to 11%. By the fifth year the District showed even more significant drops in both.

Programs that prevent students from dropping out generally pay for themselves in just a few years. Since most states have student-based funding, the more students that stay in school the larger the overall budget. But, more importantly, such a program saves kids and their parents. Believe me, once you have saved a child, his/her parents become the greatest advocates for the district.

Follow @desertcronenm on Twitter

So... Uh... Wha'd I Miss?

Looks like it's been a very interesting week since my baby was born. Between the initial shell shock of fatherhood and setting up the house we just bought and moved into just 2½ weeks ago (including the nursery finished late last night), I haven't had much time to blog or read or watch the talking heads much. So let's take a gander at what's happened just this past week or so in no particular order.

The initial steps of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell have begun. Gary Coleman died. The BP top kill theory failed while they drank more milkshake. American Idol completed another season with another undeserving winner. BP CEO Tony Hayward wants his "life back." Dennis Hopper died. Israel attacked an aid flotilla headed to Gaza and the US once again remained silent. (Imagine if it were any other country who committed this act?) BP's Hayward thinks the sickened workers cleaning up the mess are more likely the victims of food poisoning rather than the toxic slurry BP is pumping in to the Gulf to disperse the oil. Attorney General Eric Holder launched criminal and civil investigations into the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Former Dick Cheney press secretary Ann Kolton has been hired by BP for damage control purposes after realizing that Tony Hayward can't get his oil soaked boot out of his mouth.

I can only imagine what the next week will bring.

Common Sense

Attorney General Eric Holder sat before a Senate hearing today to explain the US justice system to some cowardly Republican Senators in a constant state of pants soiling these last few days at the thought of trying a self-confessed, alleged terrorist in Federal court as opposed to the military tribunals at Gitmo.

Finally a reasoned, concise explanation.

Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power – civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and others – to win. We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.

We will also use every instrument of our national power to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist attacks against our people. For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole. No longer. No more delays. It is time, it is past time, to act. By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice. That is why I made this decision.

This is nothing but common sense. There is no political agenda, save for a higher and more successful conviction rate for terrorists than the previous administration's abysmal record. If we really do toss aside our federal court system because we are "cowering" in fear of arrested terrorists on our soil to face justice, then haven't they already won?

PS - The 2pm hour on MSNBC was hosted by Andrea Mitchell via remote from Grand Rapids, Michigan because apparently the "real news" was covering Sarah Palin on the first leg of her book tour. Pathetic.

D.O.J. Decides to Try K.S.M. in N.Y.C. and G.O.P. Loses Their S.H.I.T.

What a bunch of quivering, diaper soiling pussies these GOP and wingnut mouthpieces be. Today, the Department of Justice announced that 9/11 alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would stand trial in New York City  for the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center along with four other suspected terrorists currently being detained in Guantanamo Bay.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said he would seek the death penalty against the five defendants if they are found guilty in federal court.

He announced those decisions in a news conference Friday at the Department of Justice. The arrangements would mean that civilian prosecutors would handle those detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, northern Virginia and Pennsylvania, while the 2000 attack against the Cole would remain within the military system.

Holder went on to add that despite the possibility of certain evidence being thrown out of court due to the way it was obtained (damn, that waterboarding!) there was no way he would let these trials go to Federal court had he not been "confident that the outcome would be a successful one."

But the puzzling thing that I want to know is, why do these bed wetting Republicans opposed to this move have such little faith in the United States Justice system? Why do they insist on, at the the very least, a continuation of their fear mongering?

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey: "It shows a willingness to disclose how our intelligence process works and offer [the suspects] a platform in our legal system to gather intelligence for themselves," Mukasey said before an audience of conservative lawyers at the national Federalist Society's annual legal convention in Washington.

Holder's plan "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a circus for those being tried," Mukasey said."

House Minority Leader John Boehner: "The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found ‘not guilty’ due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: “Nobody in America wants these people tried in their local community,” McConnell said, adding that getting a conviction in a civilian court will be “much tougher” and that once the U.S. Justice Department “hands these people over to the court system, they have no more control.

“If they are acquitted, a judge could simply let them go,” McConnell said. “There is no rational basis for bringing these foreigners into the U.S. court system.”

Joe Lieberman: "The terrorists who planned, participated in, and aided the September 11, 2001 attacks are war criminals, not common criminals. Not only are these individuals not common criminals but war criminals, they are also not American citizens entitled to all the constitutional rights American citizens have in our federal courts. The individuals accused of committing these heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians should therefore be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States...

...It is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created eight years ago, and give them a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims' families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America."

These are our intrepid leaders, pissing in their pants at the thought of a fair trial.  Moaning about how our Justice system shouldn't be used for "non-citizens" while (as the Rude Pundit notes), "the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says, 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial' and then talks about the rights that entails. That really doesn't distinguish between citizen and non-citizen and, indeed, there have been many decisions that allow for fair and speedy trial for immigrants both legal and illegal, as well as for non-Americans extradited to the United States for trial."

Speedy and public trial. Does speedy mean being held for six years without charges?

What are these chickenhawks frightened of?  Do they seriously believe that our supermax prisons, which hold  our most dangerous criminals, can't contain a terrorist? Do they have such little faith in our national security apparatus that even the idea of Gitmo detainees setting a physical foot on precious US soil would undermine our safety? Is McConnell really that dense to think that if by some infinitesimally slim chance KSM is somehow acquitted, he'd be able to walk out the front doors of the courthouse and disappear into the New York City streets?  Of course not.  It's all fear mongering and political posturing for his brainless base. Why would former AG Mukasey think that having Mohammed inside a federal courtroom "discloses our intelligence process" to terrorists?  How is it possible that a former prosecutor like Rudy Giuliani now thinks that the federal courts he worked in as a district attorney now can't handle terrorist cases?  Has he forgotten the name "Zacarias Moussaoui" so quickly?

All which leads to the question: why do these elected officials hate the Constitution (save Boehner who doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence)?   These war mongering, pants soiling chickenhawks should have a little more faith in the system they claim to defend than throwing out the Constitution whenever it suits them.

Holder: "Waterboarding Is Torture"

Eric Holder has started his Senate Confirmation Hearing as Attorney General Designate and Sen. Patrick Leahy's first question was Holder's stance on waterboarding. He responded unlike Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey that indeed, waterboarding is torture.

Tune in if you can.

10:40am - Sen. Arlen Specter is now grilling Holder on the Rich pardon. I have a feeling there's going to be some kind of trend going on here.

Another Piece Of The Puzzle

NBC News confirms that Eric Holder has been offered and accepted the job of Attorney General for the Obama Administration.

There was speculation that the Obama transition team ran it by the Hill first in order to receive assurances that this confirmation would go through smoothly. Erc Holder was acting AG during the Clinton Administration after Janet Reno stepped down when he signed off on the Presidential pardon of Marc Rich.