Although he's beginning to look tired and sound hoarse, at this hour Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is continuing his filibuster. My own overriding impulse all day his been simple: good for him. He's standing up for civil liberties in a way that involves no back room wheeling and dealing, but a powerful dose of determination, courage and sheer cussedness.
But is Sen. Paul wrong on the underlying issue?
Richard Miniter insists that he is. A fine journalist and a frequent guest on Ricochet podcasts, Richard just put up this post on Facebook:
RAND PAUL'S STAND against John Brennan's nomination as CIA director is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Brennan has a reputation inside the intelligence community for "failing upward" and would likely not be a stellar DCI. But Sen. Paul's objection-that Obama might use drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil--is actually dangerous. In reality, you want the president to be able to kill Americans who are attacking civilians without a court order. Does any body really think that Lincoln have gotten a warrant every time the confederates took a shot at federal property. Should George Washington have had to get a judge's approval to fire on the rebels in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion? When people take up arms against our country, they are making war on us--not engaging in criminal activity. If Sen. Paul's prevails, they will have all of the protections of criminal law--and the public will have none of the protections of military force. Hardly a good bargain.