Tweet
John Brennan Being Sworn In As CIA Director
With questions still unanswered on the President’s targeted killing powers, John Brennan was sworn in today as CIA Director. But in a ironically symbolic twist of fate the Constitution used to swear Brennan in did not contain the Bill of Rights.
From emptywheel:
According to the White House, John Brennan was sworn in as CIA Director on a “first draft” of the Constitution including notations from George Washington, dating to 1787…
That means, when Brennan vowed to protect and defend the Constitution, he was swearing on one that did not include the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments — or any of the other Amendments now included in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not become part of our Constitution until 1791, 4 years after the Constitution that Brennan took his oath on.
We see what you did there Mr. Brennan. If you don’t technically swear to uphold the bill of rights…
Probably just an oversight though Brennan was the one who requested the bill of rights-less version of the Constitution. In any case, Brennan has been clear enough on his antagonism towards constitutional protections especially due process. And given the history of the CIA it’s rather obvious breaking oaths are of little concern, they are after all spies right?
However, it might be useful for those gearing up for the next round of civil liberties fights to assume Brennan’s technical oversight as truth – the executive branch fully intends to attack the bill of rights. Not only would it put civil libertarians in the right mindset it would grant them a firm understanding of the history of the last decade.
16 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I’ll betcha the Law Perfessor Potus, selected the ‘draft’, himself…! 8-(
Hope you don’t mind, but … hmmm… well…. maybe this is more correct?
It’s not an accident.
It’s the NEW AMERIKAN CENTURY.
Tea Partiers believe in the Constitution, “without amendments and all that.”
Perfecto!
Folks,is this legal ?..why are we letting pigs into our govt
who don’t support the constitution & Bill of Rights ?
Someone help me out here,what’s going on ?
Is he legal since he swore on an un-ratified piece of paper?
I smiled when I read Eric Holder’s response to Rand Paul – about drones.
“Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.
Sounds good on the surface, thanks Eric. But with all the parsing, twisting and sophistry our government does what does ‘engaged in combat mean”? Is it a civilian using a cellphone or IPAD in a cafe on the suspicion someone is sending some signal or other information? And how is this decided, how does a person know he or she can be considered a combatant by using tools of modern living.
Continue to press Brennan, Obama and everyone on this question.
What is the tipping point for when this country can go from being protofascist to legitimately being called fascist?
When the pretense ends and they say no election this year.
Or when HLS is prowling our streets in their black tanks.
*heh* Live Free or Die…! ;-)
I’ll accept something resembling your second answer as a good criterium. The political elite have no reason to call off elections. Elections prop up the charade.
Don’t drone me, bro!
Strip the U.S. Constitution of the Bill of Rights and what do you get? An “originalist,” like Antonin Scalia, like members of the Federalist Society, like any of the Republicans that won’t be satisfied until 3/5 of all minorities (blacks, latinos, etc) cannot vote, a new 3/5 rule. So, what’s John Brennan’s “history,” regarding any “originalist” connections?
Brennan’s a monster, and it’s etched into every line of his mean, haggard Frankenstein face. If I were a praying man I’d be praying particularly hard right now.
The Supreme Law of the Land as defined by the US Constitution includes Public Law No: 107-40 passed by Congress in September 2001 declaring endless global war on scary people with the president required to designate the scary people.
And yet, I see very few progressives with the guts to demand of those elected to Congress a commitment to end that war declared in 2001.
Not even Rand Paul addressed the law that Congress passed and that his father voted for directing the president to identify the scary people we are at war with. Nothing in that law mentions and Bill of Rights. No war the US has been involved in was waged with a Bill of Rights.
The issue isn’t the president or any one in the cabinet or administration, but rather the acts of Congress. Congress failed in 2001 in response to 911 and in every year since.
Ah the new american nazis .If the Nazis had drones, or targetable steerable V-2s, they would have had no need for concentration camps and the messy evidence left behind. How much more american than to turn people to “bug splat’ with zero evidence left to collect , save some spare body parts.
This brennen assassin is out to outdo Eichmann and deserves the same hell fire missile that he murders others with. Johnnie sow the wind reap the whirlwind your day is coming along with your enabler little o.