Targeted Killings: When John Cornyn Makes Better Sense than Democrats …

Things got a little crazy when the Senate Judiciary Committee FISA Amendment Markup turned to targeted killing.

John Cornyn used the opportunity of this must-pass intelligence bill to propose an amendment to require the Administration to share its authorization for targeting killing. Cornyn rather modestly said that “I think all of troubled w/o further explanation” for the authority. [All quotes in this post are my inexact transcription] Chuck Grassley went further, saying something to the effect of “We [the Administration] has got a license to kill, and we don’t know about that license and we won’t get it until we legislate it.”

But Democrats prevented Cornyn and Grassley from attaching legislation mandating the Administration share the authorization with Congress.

Now, Cornyn claimed (incorrectly, given his inaction on Bush’s torture and wiretapping) that he wasn’t pushing for legislation on this just because the President is a Democrat; he would have done so if the President were a Republican too. To which Dick Durbin reminded him of all the times he refused to back legislation requiring oversight and transparency under Bush.

Which was Dick Durbin’s opportunity to call for writing a letter on this issue rather than legislating. Pat Leahy suggested he could just use his letter, which was already sent and ignored. Then Grassley reminded he has sent a letter on this subject too, and been ignored.

It was a bunch of Senators recounting the number of letters demanding oversight into the President’s unchecked authority to kill, including American citizens, only to be blown off. America, fuck yeah!

Again, John Cornyn came off sounding like the adult. “We’re not mere supplicants of the Executive Branch. It is insufficient to say, “Pretty please, Mr President, please tell us about the legal authorization.”

Nevertheless, that didn’t prevent Dianne Feinstein from promising that the Senate Intelligence Committee would include language about this in their authorization, and insisting that they let SSCI, not SJC, impose requirements. She suggested (though did not make explicit) that such a requirement belongs in SSCI because targeted killing is a covert program. Which is how the entire effort got tabled, leaving everyone to write more letters.

Cornyn had one more measure, requiring the President provide notice to the Gang of Eight. Dianne Feinstein, as she has repeatedly, assured her colleagues that she and Saxby Chambliss provide all the oversight on this front that is needed. To which Cornyn asked, “Is notice of targeted killing given before or after killing?” DiFi responded, “Sometimes before, sometimes during, sometimes just after.” Cornyn replied, “I don’t think Congress should delegate all authority to one or two members. Make sure not just you, but bicameral gang of eight.”

Curiously, DiFI had no response to that, leaving the impression that the Obama Administration, even on the matter of targeted killing of US citizens, has continued the Bush Administration violation of the National Security Act by briefing just the Gang of Four, not the Gang of Eight (which would add Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell to the Intelligence Committee heads being briefed).

But again, Democrats voted to table that amendment on a party line vote.

This is a problem. Not only is it taking legislation to even get the Senate Intelligence Committee adequately briefed on this topic, but Democrats are using partisan obstruction to prevent the Judiciary Committee from learning enough to assess for themselves whether the targeted killing of a US citizen violates the Constitution.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

3 Responses to Targeted Killings: When John Cornyn Makes Better Sense than Democrats …

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @shaneharris @caroljoynt Fine, show me the Paris and Prague looks.
45mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Mr_Electrico Yep. Not that such will pry @CNN's moist cloying lips off of Trump's ass or cause them to do competent political reportage.
47mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Mr_Electrico: @bmaz @CNN Trump himself was kind enough to explain why this is so: http://t.co/L8pyli5oAz
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz So @CNN does not just have their lips on Trump's misogynistic racist rump at this point, they are actually symbiotic.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ProFootballTalk If he doesn't, should he continue as coach? This is silly.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @BostonGlobe: #NFL's discipline process needs an overhaul to be truly independent, @BenVolin says http://t.co/NSMZMctlX2
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @CatherineWaldie @benjaminwittes Meh, I think he is fibbing. I can totally picture Ben in los dos calcetines y zapatos!
2hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Didn't Revelation have something to say about being marked with the Sign of the Beast? https://t.co/MYiwuRBzvO
3hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Bar codes or RFI chips? Inquiring minds want to know! https://t.co/MYiwuRBzvO
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @benjaminwittes @CatherineWaldie So you claim on Twitter! I think you have #FashionFare
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Should read "Kentucky clerk asks SCOTUS for permission to keep being an ignorant bigot" https://t.co/R7mXOZt0p2
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @KagroX TrumpoX!
4hreplyretweetfavorite