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
It’s a sad commentary on our times when Rand Paul actually makes sense.
I agree totally with Professor Turley’s statement that “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.”
DOJ under the Obama administration filed in Federal court that the Prisoner Tracking System doesn’t require a criminal charge even though they had published in the Federal Register Vol. 69 p 23213. DOJ under the Obama administration filed in Federal court “JABS is not limited to inclusion of records that are created incident to arrest for a ‘criminal charge’ (see DDC 11-01032 document 16-1 p.10). I filed an objection with the FR citation, yet Rybicki came back and asserted “Nothing in that Federal Register Notice states, as Plaintiffs erroneously claim, that the JABS must be used only to process individuals arrested for criminal offenses.” (see document 31, p 3). That is a total lie since DOJ published in the Federal Register Vol 71 p 52821 that the categories of persons whose records should be in JABS are alleged criminal offenders and no one else. I complained to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility and they emailed to me that “it is the longstanding policy of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to decline to investigate litigation claims that have been raised, could have been raised, or still may be raised in litigation.” That directly conflicts with the Code of Federal Regulations about OPR function, the annual report they published claiming to have investigated complaints of violations of the duty of candor towards the tribunal, and a speech by Eric Holder.
Swathmore Mom:
I am aware that Paul is against abortion choice, and I think that is not libertarian in practical terms, and I disagree with him on that.
But other than that, how is he against women’s rights or gay rights?
Curtain Call
By Charles P. Pierce
3/7/13
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Thanks_To_The_Senator
There is one thing I can tell you for sure. Getting name-checked by Senator Aqua Buddha on the floor of the Senate in the middle of an honest-to-Capra talking filibuster can lead to some interesting e-mails, to say nothing of some fascinating commentary on what you call your social media. And, while flattering, and hoping I don’t sound like too much of an ingrate, there remain a few observations to be made regarding last night’s festivities.
Observation The First: the blog’s Five Minute Rule regarding the Pauls remains largely intact. (This rule states that, for five minutes, both the son and the father, Crazy Uncle Liberty (!), make perfect sense on many issues. At the 5:00:01 mark, however, the trolley inevitably departs the tracks.) There was enough stuff packed in there about thousands of Iraqis who should go back home, and the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision — which, whatever you may think of it, was democratically arrived at — to hold the rule still valid.
Observation The Second: while I take Aqua Buddha — and probably Mike Lee — seriously as to the fundamental constitutional basis of their objections to what was under discussion, please to be giving me a break, Mitch McConnell, and Pat Toomey, and newly minted Senator Tailgunner Ted from Texas. None of these guys ever had a real objection that I ever heard to the drone program until it became the latest cudgel to use on That Person in the White House. (By comparison, Debbie Stabenow and Bernie Sanders have been dubious about it for months now, but they’re Democrats and, therefore, do not count.) As Adam Serwer pointed out, four of Paul’s newest fans voted in favor of indefinite detention. I hope Aqua Buddha’s ready for what’s going to happen the next time there’s a Republican president. It’s going to be awfully lonely being him.
GaryT,
Excellent…
Paul supports both civil liberties and civil rights.
About the only thing I disagree with him about is abortion rights.
Even his supposed opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1963 is mischaracterized, and is actually based in a demand for individual private property freedoms.
Paul supports 90% of the CRA, where it demands that government actors and policies not discriminating against race, gender, or color.
What he opposed is the Act’s telling private persons who and who they cannot serve in their private business establishments.
And yes that would mean that a racist person could exclude blacks from his racist bar.
And nal…. You think thesis the first time that this has ever happened….
Tony,
If we have a war on American soil it will be the next revolution….. Something about July 14th seems all to familiar….. Let them eat cake…
nal, You are right.
Darren, Dredd and Elaine…..
Do you think other people actually think when it comes to party lines…. The partisianshit is destroying this county….. I suppose I can now be labeled as racist as I strongly disagree with Obama and Bush on these issues…. I’ve already been labeled a hater of women…. Because I did not nor do I support Obama…..
Darren,
That’s why I’ve voted libeterian these last two elections…. At least it’d be a shake up if one actually won….
oops wants
gary, Rand Paul is a libertarian until it comes to women’s and gay rights. Then, he is as restrictive as they come. He even want polluters to have free rein. Why not “live and let live” for women and gay people?
It seems to me the real problem isn’t the killing of American citizens, but our general approach to killing. Any nation that truly believes that drones are “better than boots on the ground,” is a nation of cowards that wants to rape the world while suffering as little as possible itself. Until we learn to respect our fellow human beings and abandon dishonorable tactics in war, it’s only a matter of time before we find ourselves the targets of our country’s viciousness. You can only hold the wolf by the ears for so long.
“Just this week, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that this policy could include killing citizens on U.S. soil with drones”.
The argument on its own merit is silly and ridiculous started by the Gopers. We all know that we do not need any drones to kill anyone in the US. We have many many other ways to catch the hypothetical culprits.
On a serious side, the Goper Senate filibustered Caitlin Halligan’s appointment to the court, This was the second time it happened and there is no hue or cry for that which shows the pathetic state of our state. Rand Paul and his cronies had a good Kabuki dance for 13 hours on our expense. Nothing more. A total waste of time and money.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/caitlin-halligan-appeals-court_n_2819449.html
With the exceptions of Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), the supporters of Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster are just opportunists using his filibuster to score political points against Obama.
President Obama is a sacred cow to too many people who judge him as being infallable. “Apologist” is exactly what many of his supporters can be labeled as. What is really sickening is how many people who claim to champion the plight of the ordinary or downtroden remain so ardently silent or worse who attack anyone who dare question the president’s unsavory traits.
Outside of this blog, I had a couple of friends who supported him during his initial election campaign. I told both of them I understood why they were voting for him but there was something about Barrack Obama I did not trust and back then admittedly I didn’t know why but it was strongly such a feeling. Now, there is clear evidence that he cannot be trusted, especially in light of our civil liberties, and yet they still support him.
I don’t know of whether to view President Obama as a tyrrant or just simply arrogant and a self perception that he is above the law. Either way it is an unsuitable trait in a president.
Kudos to Senator Paul for literally taking the stand to do what is honourable.
Oh, please Turley, are you truly saying that there is no imaginable situation where this would be legal? Even if a war was happening on US soil and the US citizen was part of the opposition forces and could not be captured and was threatening US civilians? Give me a break. Paul isn’t principled or correct on the law.
Well this is a healthy team up.
Jonathan Turley and Rand Paul, two of my most favorite public figures in synch with the issues.
I believe this list has been fairly much hijacked by a liberal audience, so it may pain you all of that ilk to know that, IMO, JT is a left leaning libertarian.
IMO, Rand Paul is a right leaning libertarian. Even though their guts tell them they should hate each other, they will eventually see they have a lot in common, and can’t but help agree with each other.
Dredd,
I’d say the Democrats are harming themselves by not criticizing the Obama Administration for its position on this issue.
Rand Paul is on the correct side of this issue, the president is harming the democrats by being on the wrong side of this issue.