Sen. Rand Paul has ended his day-long filibuster against President Obama’s claim to be able to kill any U.S. citizen on his own authority without criminal charge or conviction. What was most striking about this principled stand is the virtual total absence of Democrats in speaking out against Obama. Just this week, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that this policy could include killing citizens on U.S. soil with drones. Yet, the Democrats worked to stop not the kill list policy but Paul’s filibuster. Obama apologists have attacked Rand for some of his other positions to avoid dealing with the fact that Obama is claiming the powers of an Imperial President. I do not agree with Paul on many things, but I commend him for this stand and condemn those who remained silent, again, in the face of this authoritarian policy of Obama.
The filibuster was to block the nomination of John Brennan who has been opposed by most civil libertarians due to his connection to the torture program and other abuses. His more senior colleagues, like John McCain, told him to “calm down” — telling advice from our political leaders that authoritarian power is nothing to get upset about if it does not affect you. Lindsey Graham stated that against up against the unilateral killing of citizens “ridiculous” and just not how things are done in Washington.
Rand fell short of the record of former Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
He shared some time with other Republican senators. However, after five hours, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to limit the remaining time.
The lack of opposition to Obama’s kill list policy is a national disgrace. It shows the triumph of a cult of personality within the Democratic ranks where both members and voters have chosen Obama over long-standing values of civil liberties that once defined their party.
Source: CNN
http://www.policymic.com/articles/28982/rand-paul-hypocrite Rand Paul is very selective about what civil rights and civil liberties he supports. He certainly does not support liberty and justice for all.
Thanks, JT. Unfortunately the cult of personality won out over principle a long time ago.
Paul’s filibuster will be portrayed by the media as paranoid, obstructionist posturing on a footnote issue by a closet racist. No doubt we will be told that it was done for free campaign publicity and ego, not principle. Paul even cited Greenwald, well known for his partisan attacks on the President.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rand-paul-promotes-bill-to-8216end-abortion-on-demand-once-and-for-all8217/ It depends on what one’s truth is. I disagree with Paul 90% of the time.
Let’s all be honest here, if there is ever a truly legitimate target backed up with evidence – there is no law that will stop any national security agency or President – so it doesn’t need to be legalized. Also the federal judges have virtually rubber-stamped everything the Executive Branch does so there is little chance of criminal prosecution and the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. This is really a debate of the “exception vs. the rule”. The United States has a long history of mission-creep and deeming people like Martin Luther King, Jr as an enemy of the state. It should be illegal to assassinate anyone on a non-battlefield period, laws really don’t stop legitimate operations as the Church Committee Reports revealed in the 1970’s.
Blouse, Bob, Elaine….
You guys can always be counted on to stand on principle….. Whether you like the guy or not…. He speaks his truth…..
ARE,
Isn’t that what the Germans said…. Famous last word bucko….
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/good-for-rand-paul/273791/
Ross,
Our country has it’s “quiet methods”, as you rightly assert. The full truth about what’s taking place in communities all across this country needs to be exposed.
” Rand is villain on civil rights (against MLK using feds 2 desegregate biz), but hero on civil liberties” Jeremy Scahill tweet
“The lack of opposition to Obama’s kill list policy is a national disgrace.”
-Jonathan Turley
The Dems will ultimately pay a steep price for their cowardice.
=====
“RT America: Assange Says WikiLeaks Still Sitting on US Secrets (VIDEO)
March 5, 2013
Summary: The US government continues to prosecute military whistleblower Bradley Manning after he pled guilty to 10 of the 22 charges against him. WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange says he will not provide any evidence against the whistleblower.
Key Quote: [GAP National Security & Human Rights Director Jesselyn Radack said] “Although Manning is often criticized for not going up his chain of command, he did go up his chain of command with this and he was told to drop it…”” -GAP (Government Accountability Project)
http://youtu.be/pq5q944FRto
Maybe the real scandal here is the title, drones are only one of an unlimited number of assassination techniques – and drones are a very loud and public method – unlike quiet methods. The question is will the non-drone methods be public and subject to oversight? If not then how can a democracy determine how to vote?
Good for Rand Paul; we need more legislators who support both the Bill of Rights and the American way (or what used to be the American way).
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/07/17223003-opportunistically-standing-with-rand I had to shut it off when Cruz started talking. Wonder which one of these tea party heroes is going to take on Jeb in the primaries. Maybe they all will, and we can have the “batshit crazy” debates again. Paul did do the right thing in bringing the issues to the forefront regardless of the motivations.
Our president is already a mass murderer & child murderer by his support for the terror killings since 1987 so he can remove the 2nd amendment along with everything else to put your rights back to before the Magna Carta. Have we already forgotten the NDA Act he signed 1.1.2012?
Bonnie, I saw Prof. Turley on the Ed Show last week.
Rand Paul Launches Talking Filibuster: Demands Assurance Obama Won’t Use Drones Against Americans In U.S.
By Zack Beauchamp and Hayes Brownon
Mar 6, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/06/1683851/rand-paul-launches-talking-filibuster-demands-assurance-obama-wont-use-drones-against-americans-in-us/
Excerpt:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has long demanded a national conversation about President Obama’s claimed power to kill American citizens. On Wednesday, he took a big step towards starting one, using a rare “talking filibuster” to hold up the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA and deliver an extended critique of the targeted killing of Americans on American soil.
Brennan played a critical role in the development and codification of the Obama Administration’s targeted killing program, so his nomination has become a flashpoint for Paul and others worried about the scope of the powers claimed in it. Publicly released documents, particularly the infamous CIA white paper outlining the legal thinking behind the strike on American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, have not provided specific guidance on the territorial limits of the Presidential power to kill citizens. A more recent document, submitted to Congress by Attorney General Eric Holder, suggested that under “extraordinary” circumstances, such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11, the president could kill an American citizen on American soil. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Holder specifically admitted that killing an American in the United States would be inappropriate and unconstitutional if the individual did not pose an imminent threat.
Throughout his filibuster, Paul repeatedly said that he would be willing to move to a vote on Brennan’s nomination if the Obama administration translated Holder’s reply into a written response and stated that it did not believe that the executive branch could target and kill Americans on American soil in most instances.
Paul acknowledged that it was unlikely that Obama would launch a drone strike against someone sleeping in their bed, but demanded clarification of what criteria the administration had for conducting targeted killing. While he initially questioned the principles behind so-called “signature strikes” against suspected terrorists not currently fighting,” Paul later shifted his focus to whether tactics used overseas could be transferred to American citizens within the U.S.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who referred to himself and Paul (both whom have strong records on civil liberties issues) as the “checks and balances caucus,” also joined the questioning. He emphasized the need for public disclosure of classified documents about the legal authorization of targeted killings, arguing that “every American has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them.” “I’ve had four sessions now with the classified documents and I still have questions,” Wyden said, concluding that “there’s a very strong case for being able to declassify” said documents.
“Let me know when the President kills somebody arbitraritly under this policy, THEN I will be outraged, but NOT before.”
Actually, the law is based on the categorical imperative; not incidental empirical consequences.
It’s what we call getting your principles in order.
I don’t suppose they let you on MSNBC anymore.
“The lack of opposition to Obama’s kill list policy is a national disgrace. It shows the triumph of a cult of personality within the Democratic ranks where both members and voters have chosen Obama over long-standing values of civil liberties that once defined their party.”
Amen
Let me know when the President kills somebody arbitraritly under this policy, THEN I will be outraged, but NOT before. As I pointed out before Lincoln did far worse during the Civil War and killed hundreds of thousants of US citizens. I applaud Lincoln for his actions and if we have such a situation come about again, then I will be supporting this policy too. Holder stated that he could not foresee all the situations and that there MIGHT be some situation that would justify such actions. THAT is why Rand was out on his own. Most people have a good grasp of common sense.
Regardless of the merits of the policy Senator Paul was railing against, it seems to me that it is dysfunctional to play out in the context of a confirmation hearing. Why doesn’t Senator Paul introduce legislation to prohibit that which offends him and raise the issue in a proper context rather than gumming up the works on something that is a distinct issue — whether Brennan should be confirmed. It is like so much of the dysfunction in Washington — by both parties — to seize on unrelated but necessary legislative action that they can delay or kill because they are peeved by something else or, more likely, they just want to grandstand for their base.