Sen. Rand Paul is filibustering the hell out of Obama’s nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA, over Brennan’s refusal to rule out lethal drone strikes on American soil. Jordan Bloom is liveblogging it here. You’ve got to read Bloom’s post to keep up with what’s been happening. Paul has turned the Senate into Fort Awesomeshark!
Go, Rand Paul, Go!
59 Responses to Go, Rand Paul, Go!
← Older Comments-
SusanMcN says:
Black is white, up is down, cats and dogs are living together and Rand Paul and I are on the same side of an argument.
-
Tyro says:
Basically, if a Republican kills an American “enemy combatant” while he’s sitting in a coffee shop, that’s an example of his resolve to realize that we are at war and make the tough decisions necessary.
But if a Democrat says that we would use drones and other military weapons during a wartime or terrorist attack on American soil, that means he’s a tyrant who hates freedom.
I broadly agree with Paul on this topic in general, and actually fall on the much more liberal side of the issue (outside of an actual theater of war, terrorists should be handled by law enforcement as soon as is practicable). But unlimited executive authority appeals to our lizard brains, and I have no doubt that once the prospect becomes attractive to conservatives to see their executive with “unchecked authority”, they will cheer that moment.
To Republicans, a republican president using unchecked executive authority is not unchecked at all– they feel that as long as they generally approve of the president, his authority is being checked. What they are upset about is that it’s a president they personally don’t have any party “pull” over doing something they do not like. Since Obama is not one of them, they’re upset.
-
Adrian says:
While I’m sure most of the Republicans backing Paul are doing so mostly because they want to stick it to Obama, and they’re really not opposed to drones (especially not if a Republican is using them) I’m reminded of a quote by Churchill:
“If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
-
Some have argued Rand Paul’s extended filibuster was a mere political stunt borne out of ignorance, ultimately bringing only embarrassment to the halls of the Senate. Nonsense. The question posed by Rand Paul was perfectly legitimate, as was his means for bringing it into national conversation, especially considering the rather vague response he received from the Attorney General when he initially posed the question to the White House. Perhaps the reason some of the ruling class is peeved is because they tend to bristle when reminded that any limits of any sort exist on what they ought to be able to do. For most of these folks the only thing that matters is that they respond to the issue of the day. The consitutionality of doing so is often an afterthought, if it is given any thought at all. As Joe Sobran always said, “The Constitution poses no threat to our form of government.” After all, it is one thing for the ruling class to remind us they are not dicators; it is another matter altogether for one of us to remind them. Regardless of the issue, that sort of thing goes over about as well as serving bacon at Passover.
-
shecky says:
For crying out loud, folks, Paul’s filibuster was really a overly dramatic piece of nonsense. His paranoid rant certainly got attention, though.
FWIW, Holder Responded.
“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “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.”
To which Paul basically responded with “uhh… ok.”
-
Charlie says:
Here’s how Paul responded to Holder’s letter:
“I’m quite happy with the answer, and I’m disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it,” Paul told CNN. “But we did get the answer. And that’s what I’ve been asking all along.”
I don’t think this means the filibuster was “posturing,” or a stunt–I think it means someone had to make a dramatic gesture in order to drag a straight answer out of the administration. The Obama Administration is repeating a lot of the mistakes of the Bush Administration when it comes to secrecy and a tendency to assert unilateral executive authority. Jack Goldsmith, who made these arguments directly to his colleagues when he was working for the Bush Administration, has a good perspective:
-
While I agree with Rand Paul’s stated position, and Attorney General Holder’s stated position, it does seem plausible that Paul asked one question, threw a rant over the answer he received not being the answer to another, unasked, question, and then blamed Holder for the intervening time when Holder promptly answered the question Paul only asked when he launched his filibuster.
It is certainly reassuring to have the Attorney General’s stated opinion that the President does NOT have the constitutional authority to kill and American citizen, not engaged in combat, on American soil, with a weaponized drone.
-
Larry says:
I wanted to be fair and note that Andrew Sullivan did praise Rand’s filibuster in a post of his on The Dish, on Thursday morning. I had criticized Andrew’s Wednesday silence in a comment of mine on this thread, Wednesday night.
American citizens will be killed by drones one day, but not by their own country, but by one of those nations to whom we have univitedly sent our drones to kill “terrorists” (I think it was Glenn Greenwald who asked, “do we kill them because they are terrorists, or are they terrorist because we kill them?”). The U.S. has established the precedent that you do not need the permission of the sovereign nation into whose territory you send your predatory drones. So we will have no argument when other countries launch drone attacks against, oh let us say American war criminals who order drone strikes that kill innocent bystanders, known in Orwell-speak as collateral damage. Drone warfare is an attempt by epicene Americans to have war without casualties. The eventual blowback will not be pretty, but will at least disabuse us of the notion that you may kill in warfare without risking being killed in return.
As for Sen. Paul, he has earned a plenary indulgence for all past sins (e.g., voting to delay the Hagel vote) for his old-fashioned filibuster.