Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Launches a Filibuster Against Drone Strikes On US Soil
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that at about 11:45 am today, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul took the floor of the Senate to launch one of the chamber's rarest spectacles: a genuine filibuster. Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. He called Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to rule out drone strikes to kill an American on U.S. soil 'more than frightening,' adding, 'When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It's an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, "No." The president's response? He hasn't killed anyone yet. We're supposed to be comforted by that.' Any senator can opt to hold the floor to speak on any matter, but the practice of speaking for hours on end is rare, especially in the modern-day Senate, where the chamber's rules are used more often to block legislation or to hold show votes on trivial matters. Paul has since been joined in his symbolic effort by Republicans Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). He has also gotten some bipartisan support from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.). Paul suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of people who might have been considered enemies of the state. 'Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'"
is not my friend. But damn if I'm not happy someone is asking these questions and putting up some serious opposition.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes.
Why isn't EVERYONE IN CONGRESS alarmed by this?
Once again, Ron Wyden's name appears in a noble context. The man needs to run for President.
then I realised that it's the other way around.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.
Uh, I think you missed the point. Fonda was viewed by many Americans as a traitor during the Vietnam War, both for the things she said, and for an incident where she was photographed sitting on a NVA anti-aircraft gun (which she has explained was unintentional, but nobody bought that).
The comparison to Fonda is meant to bring up an image of a hated, anti-American citizen who might be worthy of getting taken out. That's the reference he was making.
I think that due process includes the right to confront your accuser in court and a trial by a jury of your peers. Not by getting the right signature from someone above your rank.
Heh.
Unfortunately, looking at how the FBI abused its powers decades ago, we would more likely see such powers used against various college kids. Hoover was infamous for using government powers to crack down on civil rights activists, including going as far as to orchestrate at least one high profile smear campaign to cover up an agent's role in the murder of an activist. All under the idea that civil rights leaders were threats to America and thus enemies of the state.
So it wouldn't be the Jane Fondas of the world that would suffer, it would be no-name nobodies that do not have enough of a public personality to survive the 'they were enemies' rationalization.
An armed drone strike is the functional equivalent of launching a manned jet strike. While there is a lot of hyperbole on both sides, this is one point we need to make sure stays absolutely clear. If you wouldn't hit it with an F-15 on US Soil, you shouldn't use a drone to do it.
Good-bye
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to hold hearings on the program rather than obstruct confirmations?
Probably not, at least from his point of view, because he doesn't have the power to make hearings happen. As a single, lone, junior senator, this is about the only thing he can do.
From a practical perspective, in the last decade hearings have been the most boring, useless things around. A filibuster will definitely attract more attention.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Contrary to popular theory, a lack of a permanent CIA Director does not cripple the government.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
but this is definitely a great moment for him. I hope he can keep it going until he forces an answer out of the White House.
This is how filibusters ought to be done!
Because back then, if you asked the President, "Is it legal for you to order the assassination of an American citizen, in America, without trial," he would have said "No!" without hesitation. Same with the Supreme Court.
Now, if you ask the President, he will not say "No." He won't say "Yes" either, but failing to answer such an easy question with a clear "No" speaks for itself. And the Supreme Court will not say "No" either; they will say "You can't sue us regarding your potential assassination by the United States government until such time as you can prove you were actually harmed by being assassinated by the United States government. Case dismissed."
The law has changed for the worse since the days of the Vietnam War. This isn't about drones.