If details need to be redacted, fair enough. But why fight wars both in court and on Capitol Hill to maintain secrecy about the law itself? Secret law, for good reason, is often regarded as no law at all.
– Garrett Epps, writing for the Atlantic (emphasis mine), in regards to the perplexing, ineffective, and poorly-advised way the Obama Administration has been releasing information on the parameters of the drone program, and how the law will impose regulation, after Rand Paul’s much-discussed filibuster before the Senate. Epps described the Administration’s approach as “ham-fisted” and also said, “The drone war may not be a cancer on the Obama presidency, but a wise doctor at this point would order more tests,” and I can’t help but agree.
Continuing the topsy-turvy, down-is-up cognitive dissonance perpetrated by the wagonload in Congress over the past few months, Lindsey Graham demands some consistency from his fellow Republicans, and proclaims his “disappointment” in them for criticizing the Administration’s continuation of Bush’s drone program. So, yes, he is, in effect, standing up for Obama.
It’s really quite something, and you should watch it.
As far as Epps’s point goes, I’d back him up by asking, “how can justice that has to be served in secret be justice?”