Photo: Gage Skidmore (flickr)
In a special article, Peter Cruttenden writes on the controversial issues of U.S. drone attacks and President Obama’s targeted killings, with relation to the use of the ‘filibuster’ in the United States Senate.
Peter S. Cruttenden is a U.S. citizen and PhD candidate in the University of Nottingham’s, School of Politics and International Relations. He is also affiliated with the Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice (CSSGJ) and the Centre for the Study of Conflict and Terrorism (CSCT).
Ever since the re-election of Barak Obama, U.S.-based progressive groups have been sending out e-mails in attempts to initiate on-line grass-roots campaigns to eliminate the use of the filibuster in the United States Senate. To be sure, the use of the filibuster within the U.S. Senate has historically been used as a device to obstruct legislation, including civil rights, meaningful gun control, not to mention, equitable tax treatment affecting the wealthiest U.S. citizens and corporations.
Even the threat of a filibuster has derailed the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the passage of the Dream Act, which has instilled a sense of both marginalisation and empowerment to the undocumented youth movement. So, at first blush, Progressives in the U.S. might be tempted to add their name to such petitions along with a contribution of a few of their hard-earned dollars to break the stranglehold of conservative entrenched Senate Republicans such as Mitch McConnell and Tom Coburn, the notorious Dr. No.
On the surface, it seems that nothing would be better than to the eliminate the requirement that 60 U.S. Senators support a piece of legislation and debate within the Senate chamber could be limited without involving cloture. There is little doubt that the chances for a more U.S. progressive domestic agenda could be advanced if the filibuster was eliminated.
However, Progressives need to think again and not jump on anti-filibuster bandwagon too quickly without considering how a filibuster has been extremely important in altering President Obama’s targeted killings policy. Anyone who is knowledgeable about U.S. politics knows that there is absolutely nothing in common between so-called Tea Party candidates such as Rand Paul and anti-war activists such as Code Pink . Yet this strange political marriage of convenience emerged when Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan (aka the “Assassination Czar”) to become Obama’s head of the Central Intelligence Agency. The major reason for Paul’s filibuster was that he sought assurances from the Obama Administration and Brennan that the Terror Tuesday sessions at the Obama White House would not include the use of drones for targeted killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
Needless to say, Paul’s 13 hour filibuster did contain some fairly outrageous claims that bordered on paranoia by wondering if the use of weaponised drones could be used for targeting Tea Party members. Of significance is the following quote:
“Yes, I was at a Tea Party meeting and I was critical of the President; but I’m not a revolutionary; please don’t kill me.”
No doubt, such statements made on the U.S. Senate floor made for bizarre political theatre, especially when juxtaposed against the anti-drone statements of Democratic Senator Ron Wyden who effectively, yet wonkishly, spoke of issues of accountability, Congressional oversight and transparency, as he briefly spoke during Paul’s filibuster. However, it was Paul’s filibuster, no matter how self-aggrandising it may have been, which initiated a debate on Obama’s policy of target killings, which has long been sought by many on the political left in the U.S.
Obama’s policy of targeted killings, directed in pertinent part, by John Brennan, during his tenure as a member of Obama’s National Security Council, has been shrouded in secrecy. Such secrecy is exacerbated by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s anemic oversight of the target-killings policy in which the Committee’s Chairperson, Senator Diane Feinstein becomes almost complicit in not only the illegal killings of U.S. citizens abroad, but contributing to the proliferation of Muslim militant extremism in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, as a result of so called drone signature strikes that continue to kill innocent civilians. The relationship between drone signature strikes, unwarranted “collateral damage” and the perpetuation of terrorism, is a point that critical security and critical terrorism theorists have long been arguing and which has long been ignored, until Paul’s filibuster.
While one can ridicule Paul’s filibuster comment of “Please don’t kill me;” there are perhaps thousands in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere that possibly use similar wording in order to describe the everyday insecurity caused by Obama’s target killings policy. One needs only to peruse the Stanford/NYU report, “Living Under Drones”, to comprehend the correlation between drone signature strikes and potential terrorism.
I, for one, totally agree with U.S. based syndicated journalist E.J. Dionne, when he told MSNBC’s political analyst, Lawrence O’Donnell that the Senate Democrats ceded an important opportunity to the likes of the Tea Party, by not taking the initiative in opening up a debate which has long been necessary. Dionne, went so far as to note that there may be a point in time that Democrats will regret that they allowed Paul to control the agenda on civil and human rights; an agenda which Democrats and Progressives purport to champion.
In conclusion, while Paul’s filibuster, unlike the filibuster portrayed in the film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, did not forestall a less than desirable outcome, Brennan’s CIA confirmation, the filibuster did initiate a badly needed public debate on drones. A debate that recently culminated Obama publicly announcing guidelines on drone strikes, that may or may not, ban signature strikes. And more importantly, the operation of drones strikes in “non-combat” theatres such as Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, has been transferred from the CIA to the U.S. Department of Defense; whose officials are required to take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, while the odd and temporary marriage of convenience between the rising star of the Tea Party and progressive anti-war groups like Code Pink, did not necessarily stop John Brennan’s confirmation to the CIA, yet small, but profound changes resulted from his filibuster. Obama has, to a limited extent, thrown back the shroud of secrecy which has characterised his policy of target-killings.
So, Progressives in the U.S. need to bear in mind that the U.S. Presidency can be captured by any of the two major parties at any given presidential election. And that there is no doubt that the filibuster has historically been employed to obstruct progressive politics. Yet, as Paul’s filibuster has somewhat constrained the growing imperial presidency of a Democratic president, in the future, Progressives will most likely be demanding a filibuster to obstruct “imperial presidential” policies of a Republican president.
By Peter S. Cruttenden, PhD Candidate at the University of Nottingham.
Statisfied 