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
Bron, lol, I was addressing the birther. We just elected one with 51% The people that didn’t vote for him would like to overturn the election. Why do you guys want Biden? It will be 4 years before you can vote for Rand Paul.
Swarthmore Mom:
“We need a new prez”
I heartily concur. Good for you for taking that stand.
Mile A.,
You have spoken many good things…. Again, sir, you have out done yourself…. I am in total agreement…..
We need a new prez, It certainly appears that Rand Paul’s filibuster has all the birthers, preppers, freepers, creepers, etc. all riled up. I would hope that this is an unintentional result of the filibuster.
Tony Smith,
Not to burst your bubble but you are completely wrong, the only reason a U.S. Citizen would fight on their own grounds is out of protection for themselves and their people. I’m sure you would feel pretty bad if you knew what most of us know. I will not make this long because I fear for my own safety. He supposedly has authority to take out anyone he wants and I know for a fact that he will. He does not care about us at all, actually it is the quite opposite for Barry Soetoro(Barrack Hussein Obama). He is not a U.S. citizen , and should not be president to begin with. By the way he is a Muslim and Hates America/Americans. So research a little before you type.
By the way, Obama has already killed a 16 year old U.S. Citizen. This is despicable, and I don’t even feel like posting this because for you idiots I’m putting my own life on the line.
Elaine M.
1, March 7, 2013 at 6:02 pm
If citizens can be “indefinitely detained,” how will we know what has happened to them?
= = = =
As long as we can keep erasing the video tapes, who’ll know anything happened to them?
Gene,
Great audio clip. GFOS! Hardest working man in show business!
The funkiest ode to Congress and Eric Holder ever . . .
Rand Paul got his answer, eh? What does the “not engaged in combat” mean” What is and is not “combat?” What is and is not “engaged in?” And even if drones won’t be used in such manner, is this a universal ban on murdering citizens within the US, or only an exception to the general rule authorizing such killings?
You are probably right Mike. Congress doesn’t have the stones to do their job.
I definitely agree with you and rafflaw on that. But I fear that Congress is quite comfortable leaving it all in the President’s hands.
Ecce homo!!!
Where are Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, and the gentleman from Vermont???
Vanity of all vanity!
Mike Appleton,
Thank you. You are correct.
And Holder’s latest reply has zero legal standing.
Nothing has changed.
Mike A.,
Yep. I rather liked raff’s straight forward suggestion of revoking and/or modifying the AUMF (and repealing the Patriot Act). Baby steps, but I’d really be thrilled if Congress stepped up to the plate and reigned in the Executive starting with the AUMF.
Excellent post Mike A.
Hi, Gene. I guess I would be a bit more moved if filibusters gave way to legislative proposals designed to restore some semblance of balance.
Mike A.,
While I think someone needed to step up and challenge the unitary Executive, as your last paragraph points to the proof is in the eating of the pudding.
Well said.
The Bush/Cheney administration regarded the rule of law as an anachronistic notion unsuited to modern realities. So they insisted in their fear-driven mania that barbarism in the defense of liberty is a civic duty and that the morality of a nation’s actions can only be judged in comparison to the perceived morality of its enemies. Domestic and treaty law governing conduct toward prisoners and civilians alike became, with the corrupt assistance of cynical government lawyers, matters of no consequence to the executive branch, to whom Congress had gratefully ceded its war making authority to avoid having to make decisions for which its members might some day be held accountable. Then torture and rendition and indefinite detention quickly came to be seen as justifiable and even honorable practices, cloaked in the protective myth of American exceptionalism.
The election of Pres. Obama did not bring about the promised restoration of the rule of law, however. Instead, he grasped all of the authority surrendered by a pliant legislative branch and approved by an authoritarian Supreme Court and assured us that those powers are not dangerous in the hands of a responsible person like himself. And liberals, possessed of the same tendency toward self-delusion as their conservative political foes, breathed more easily.
In the space of a mere decade a single act of terrorism has led the most powerful nation in the world to dismantle the only bulwark against tyranny in a democracy, the constitutional separation of powers. We have told the President that he may do anything he deems necessary, as long as he protects us from the Muslim hordes and sharia law, and the President has said, “Trust me.”
Now, against this background, a grandstanding senator has taken the floor in a toothless rant against drones, followed immediately by a vote confirming the appointment of a torture enabler to run the most dangerous agency of government. I trust that you’ll forgive me for not being impressed.
I get a lot of gas for barkin too much- especially from FartinDog. But there is nothing wrong with holding the floor when ya got something to say. Rand Paul is a good floor holder. I listened to some of it on tv. I am not a RepubliCon but I would hazard that he beats Rubio, Cruz, Gov Perry, fatguy from Jersey and the rest of the Presidential wannabees.