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 Twitter16Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook32Google+0Email to someone

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @natnicol Really, entire bar comes down to whether you can keep necessaries away from proctor isn't it? Hell I could pass that! @sarahjeong
46sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TyreJim I've only started with them. But them, I'm half-way to dead and still have only a radiation tattoo. @sarahjeong
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TyreJim If her Tor sticker were the one the NSA uses, with the hairy "terrorist" dude, that'd be lethal too. @sarahjeong
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Bibi likely thinking to himself, "Ha! That windsurfer had to have a girl defend him."
12mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carimachet @kevinjonheller But don't blow shit up my ass and tell me what and how to think on legal issues.
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @sarahjeong Sure you will! YOu're missing the "National Security Agency Monitored Device" one, which is the real sticker of death. @TyreJim
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carimachet @kevinjonheller Would IHL if applied properly make a difference? Along with other modalities, of course. Is it currently, no.
13mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carimachet @kevinjonheller No, I will not argue your point because you are egregiously mischaracterizing what Kevin has opined.
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TyreJim Was thinking that myself. Going into the bar exam and not prepping to litigate the meaning of "excessive." @sarahjeong
17mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @carimachet @kevinjonheller I have known, seen and read Kevin for quite a while now and think you are terribly mistaken.
19mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ryanjreilly Getting pretty close to every time now, albeit some a little more shaded than others.
20mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @JasonLeopold To be fair, they ARE a bunch of liars, starting from the top. Question is are they lying THIS TIME?
27mreplyretweetfavorite