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?'"

Comments

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[guspasho]

Regular and ongoing military operations are generally what is considered being "at war". Certainly by the people who are subject to the regular attacks that, incidentally, kill 50 innocents for every terrorist. Obama has started wars in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. We didn't have any regular and ongoing operations in any of those countries before he came in to office. Maybe Pakistan, I could be wrong about that one.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[DerekLyons]

I think that explains it pretty well. A few weeks before the Iraq war started, the world saw the largest coordinated protest in history across hundreds of cities, with millions upon millions of people calling for peace. The end result: Nothing. The largest action of its kind in human history, and it did absolutely nothing.

Nobody with any brains expected anything to happen.
 

Fast forward to protests held during Obama's tenure, the Occupy Wall Street movement. This time it wasn't a single day, but weeks, and months, of protest camps across hundreds of cities. The end result: ? How many bankers have been arrested? How many laws have changed? What impact has it had aside from a media sideshow?

If anything, the Occupy protestors were even more clueless than the anti-war protesters - they didn't even have a coherent agenda, let alone a coherent plan.
 
Protests don't fix problems or stop wars - anyone who has made even the most cursory study of history should be capable of recognizing that. Action makes changes - at the ballot box, in the places you choose to spend your money, etc... etc... But pretty much anyone under the age of forty or fifty has been raised in a culture where taking a stand is thought as unseemly - "raising consciousness" and "highlighting the plight" and "bringing attention to" and other no risk see-and-be-seen puppet shows are what are rewarded socially.
 

Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change? Thats why people aren't protesting now.

Oh, sure they're protesting - from the safety of their keyboards. They're twitting and liking and forwarding... that's even easier than protesting and gives the same faux feeling of "accomplishing" something. (They're also voting for the same rascals - because they're of the 'right' party... and then wondering why things don't change.)