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

The enemy of my enemy

[Hatta]

is not my friend. But damn if I'm not happy someone is asking these questions and putting up some serious opposition.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[KermodeBear]

On the other extreme I really like Rand Paul, and though I am not thrilled by people like Pelosi or Reid, I would support them 100% if they would speak out against drone strikes on US citizens.

There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[Cro Magnon]

On the other extreme I really like Rand Paul, and though I am not thrilled by people like Pelosi or Reid, I would support them 100% if they would speak out against drone strikes on US citizens.

There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".

Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[CanHasDIY]

There needs to be less "Us vs. Them" in American politics. There needs to be more "Right vs. Wrong".

Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.

Re: Mods

THAT'S NOT FUNNY! It's the crux of the fucking problem!

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right.

It's just like we had to wait for a Democrat in the White House for the Republicans to demand any action on wartime injustice committed by our country. They had no problem OK'ing all of it under Bush, including torture.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[anagama]

So cynically true.

I've come to realize that American politics isn't about policies at all. It's tribalism. How else can you explain how Democrats who once shredded GWB on his horrid civil liberties record, clam up and circle the wagons around Obama when Obama is even worse than GWB. It obviously has nothing to do with the policy being evil if both sides do it, and that leaves nothing but base tribal defense.

Obama and his ilk in the DNC are precisely why I have utterly abandoned them. Last election I voted for my fucking cat on any ballot position for which there was no third party candidate. I'd vote for Satan if he ran as not-GOP or not-DNC, and you know what, I'd be voting for the lesser evil.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[Mashiki]

It's a fake debate using FUD to take the eyes off the fact that the republicans have lied and moved the goal post on the economy and budget issues.

Would that be the part about Obama's administration not tabling any budgets for the past oh what is it now? 5 or 6 years, or the fact that they're trying to claim that a 2% cut is the end of the world.

It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States, "Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul's question about whether Obama "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial."

That doesn't get much clearer does it.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[Qzukk]

Where are all these groups and people now who were protesting against the war.

In jail

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[t4ng*]

Where are all these groups and people now who were protesting against the war. Especially now that Obama has launched three new ones, and wants to have defacto powers to execute americans on american soil without due process.

Don't you remember? They were shouted down, pelted with trash by passers-by, corralled by police, and largely ignored by both the media and politicians. The protests were completely ineffective. My proof? The illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were started by Bush anyway.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. I think it is hilarious that Democrats cheer for a health care law that was originally designed by Republicans during the Clinton administration, while Republicans protest it now because it was passed into law by Democrats. And now we have Republicans protesting drone programs created during the Bush administration, and protesting killing Americans with drones when the Bush administration killed at least one American without due process because he was deemed an "enemy combatant."

But I doubt Republicans will want to put too many restrictions on a warmongering, domestic-spying Democratic president. They realize any laws they pass now to rein in Obama could also be used rein in future presidents, which may be one of them.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[anagama]

I don't think anybody anywhere suggests that a person engaging in a violent criminal act and who will not surrender or surrender is not an option (e.g., seconds away from pulling the trigger) --- nobody is saying "don't kill the shooter." There is absolutely no constitutional or ethical issue with using deadly force to end the rampage. Never has been. The drone policy is much more like the situation where "Joe (who has a grudge against Bob) told Sally who told a mall cop, that Bob was going to shoot up the mall," so the mall cop sneaks up behind Bob while he's eating in the food court and blows his brains out.

Drone strikes are about killing people the Government, in secret and with no oversight, has _accused_ of being dangerous people (based on who knows what) while those people are NOT actively engaged in any type of violent activity. There are several problems here:

1: accusation is not guilt. If you ever have been the subject of a vengeful person's wrath, you get this. People lie. If you've ever been accused of something by mistake, you get this. People err.

2: accusation in secret means you don't even know you've been accused and have absolutely no chance to demonstrate that there is some kind misunderstanding. You're just driving down the road thinking about dinner, then you're dead.

3. if you aren't actually in the middle of rampage through the mall or a kindergarten, how is it that arrest is too onerous? It's not, or if it is, then all arrests everywhere are too dangerous and all suspects everywhere should just be killed. I'm sure even in N. Korea you get a show trial first. And it is that black and white -- either all accused not actively doing their crime should be summarily executed based on accusation alone, or only those people who are actually acting in an immediately dangerous fashion should be subject to deadly force. There is no logical reason to create exceptions in which some people in non-dangerous situations should be killed and others should not.

4. secret laws. These drone strikes are based on secret legal memos that Obama says authorize them. First off, legal memos your lawyers write for you aren't the law -- they're opinion. Secondly, what the fuck -- we're talking secret laws here. How can you avoid breaking a law if it is secret? Anwar Alwaki published youtube videos. He was murdered for exercising free speech apparently. Wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what you are allowed to say in American political discourse before you are killed by a drone? And then, if you are accused of saying something, wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend yourself in the event there was a misinterpretation?

There really is no middle ground -- either you accept arbitrary Federal murder of people accused of any crime or you don't. If you don't, you resist drones. If you do, you are a traitor to everything the constitution stands for.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[PRMan]

I quit being a Republican when they started arguing about "what constitutes torture"? I told them that every time they continued to call for donations...

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[bwcbwc]

I note that the key phrase of the filibuster is about "killing Americans on American soil". So neither Republicans nor Democrats have a problem with killing Americans abroad? I think I better cancel that trip to Germany. What a subtle way to enforce travel restrictions while seeming to allow freedom of movement [/hyperbole]

Seems like trade between the US and China DOES affect politics and policy: we're becoming more totalitarian and restrictive even faster than China is opening up.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[PraiseBob]

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.

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?

And now the GP wonders, why aren't people protesting more? Why aren't people making a big protest against the president's claim to kill political dissidents? It's ridiculous to claim that partisan politics are what stand in the way. It didn't prevent OWS from happening did it?

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

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[dryeo]

I find the key phrase to be killing people without due process. Whether American or not, it is wrong to randomly kill people for their political beliefs.
Could be worse, here in Canada the right wing is going to remove citizenship from terrorists to get around that problem. Of course the definition of terrorist seems to constantly grow.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[Score Whore]

The Washington State gubernatorial election of 2004 was invalidated by fraud. During the post election legal maneuvers the Judge "noted that there was evidence that 1,678 votes had been illegally cast throughout the state." Additionally it is known that there were 3,500 more counted ballots in King county than there were registered voters. In the end the Judge concluded that he was unable to know how those illegal ballots were cast so he decided to do nothing. The election was settled by a difference of 133 votes. It's not known how the fraud effected the election, but the known fraud exceeded the margin of victory.

Re:The enemy of my enemy

[microbox]

This plane is delivery military aid. If you include military aid as part of war (which is a valid point of view), then the US is at war with half the world.

Almost...

[chill]

He had a lot of people thinking about it, until he offered up dropping a Hellfire on Jane Fonda. Now they're all thinking "Let's not be hasty here. This is the perfect test case."

It is disturbing...

[Mitreya]

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?

Re:It is disturbing...

[EmagGeek]

There is no lack of definition: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It's right there. It's a crime against the constitution for the government to kill a US Citizen, on US Soil, without due process.

Re:It is disturbing...

[cusco]

This is an error I see repeated all the time. Nowhere does it say "citizen" in that statement. The Constitution pertains to everyone, including illegal immigrants, foreign fighters that have infiltrated the border, fishermen offshore but within territorial waters, tourists, everyone. The only place in the Constitution where citizenship is mentioned is in qualifications to hold office. Sorry, maybe I'm just being picky but I think it's an important point.

Re:It is disturbing...

[phantomfive]

You can check this analysis by a Harvard constitutional law professor. Apparently the administration believes terrorist Americans deserve due process, but they redefined due process. Here is a quote from the professor:

The Obama administration’s apparent belief that due process can be satisfied in secret inside the executive branch is...a travesty of the very notion of due process. And to borrow a phrase from Justice Robert Jackson, it will now lie about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any administration that needs it.

Another interesting quote reveals a fact of which I was unaware:

Although the white paper doesn’t say so, Awlaki even tried to get a hearing before he was killed. His father asked a federal court to find that he wasn’t a terrorist. But the court never heard his claim, because the Obama administration persuaded it not to consider the case.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's the new normal

[dbIII]

It's been going on for quite a few years now. I don't know why anybody can seriously expect bad behaviour abroad to stay abroad. A good example is a bunch of French torturers who came home from Algeria, didn't like the French President and then decided that since they were used to working outside the rules they may as well do the same at home and try to kill their head of state.