Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Has Rand Paul Got it All Wrong?
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.
Well?
Published in General
They’re in a car, they’re in their house, they’re in a restaurant, they’re in a cafe. If we’re going to bring that standard to America, what I’m doing down here today is asking the President to be ex– is asking the President to be explicit. If you’re going to have the standard that you’re going to kill noncombatants in America, come forward and please say it clearly so we know what we’re up against. If you’re not going to do it, come up with the easy answer, is I’m not going to kill noncombatants. That would have been easy for him to say.” ·7 minutes ago
Holder effectively did this in his exchange with Cruz today, which is the point: The Administration and Rand Paul agree.
Again, Conor or anyone, please link to anyone in the Administration claiming the right to assassinate a citizen on our soil who’s a non-immediate threat, as it has done in Yemen. Otherwise this fillibuster is attacking a strawman — in the best Obama tradition.
I’m among those that think David Koresh was a bad man who ought to have been stopped, but not placed under a long siege that imperiled so many others. What does the thread say about a similar scenario using the new drone technology? Would we have countenanced using a drone on him or the compound, rather than (or after) sending in an ATF SWAT team that failed to arrest him?
For those determined to look farther back, what about John Brown at Harper’s Ferry? Drone him, or send in the Marines (under Lee) to arrest him?
I don’t have an answer, but it seems that armed rebellions of large scale are unlikely, while small, dedicated, armed bands of believers are all too possible. ·50 minutes ago
Yes, indeed, and especially when you hear Atty. Gen. Eric Holder’s views on the “threat to America from religious fanatics (Christian, not Muslim).”
·7 minutes ago
.
Again, Conor or anyone, please link to anyone in the Administration claiming the right to assassinate a citizen on our soil who’s a non-immediate threat, as it has done in Yemen. Otherwise this fillibuster is attacking a strawman — in the best Obama tradition. ·3 minutes ago
Edited 1 minute ago
Paul has been asking for the administration to affirm in the negative. Can you quote where the adminisration flatly said it would never use drones against non-immediate threats in the form of American citizens?
What’s at issue is the power to kill Americans who are not attacking.
Everyone agrees about that.
Miniter is apparently misinformed. So is Paul Rahe. ·1 minute ago
Conor, if you have a second, could you link to the Administration claiming the right to assassinate non-attacking citizens on our soil? I haven’t seen this. ·26 minutes ago
Again, what is concerning is Eric Holder (Attorney General), refusal to say, simply “we do not claim the right to assassinate non-attacking citizens on our soil.”
“No” is an answer. Under great duress, I think Eric Holder finally coughed that up this afternoon. Prehaps he will cleave to that. Perhaps he won’t.
Other than that excruciatingly drawn-out exchange with Ted Cruz, please link to the site where the Administration claims that it does NOT have the right to assassinate non-attacking citizens on US soil. That simple statement, bereft of terms like ‘hypothetical” and ‘appropriate,’ and ‘transparent,’ and including the phrase “NO,” might go a long way to reassuring the rest of us.
I come to Ricochet and what do I see on the Main Feed? Questions on whether the GOP should stand with Sen. Paul or if there’s any legitimacy to his message. Seriously, guys? ·1 hour ago
Edited 36 minutes ago
You will like the member feed much more. :-)
Miniter is missing the point, and so is Rahe. I missed the point until around 3PM, as well. ·50 minutes ago
C-span has been covering this all day.
God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason.
Did Rand Paul just quote from the same Wired article twice?
At least law enforcement had a warrant in that episode. It was not a case of unwarranted targeted assasination.
There is a huge… HUGE difference… between ordering lawful authorities to fire at aggressors that are actively endangering lives… a mob, a sniper, a robber, etc… and assassinating American citizens from the air when they’re not shooting at someone. I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like Holder is saying the President can assassinate citizens. If I understand him correctly, then I’m completely with Paul here.
I am wondering, would the President’s policy apply to Anwar Al-Awlaki driving in Iowa versus Yemen?
I suspect the urge to avoid placing combatants in custody is strong. Who wants that legal and, possibly, hypocrisy exposing headache?
I come to Ricochet and what do I see on the Main Feed? Questions on whether the GOP should stand with Sen. Paul or if there’s any legitimacy to his message. Seriously, guys? ·1 hour ago
Edited 36 minutes ago
You will like the member feed much more. :-)
In fact, I generally do.
Can we get Rand Paul on one of the Podcasts?
Just not tonight. Or tomorrow. Or any time in the next few days.
When he’s done with this he’ll be all in!
Yep. Poor guy’s running out of material. Perhaps he should have an ipad with Ricochet on. He could start reading the main feed.
Richard Miniter is wrong, Paul just clarified his position on the floor that he is not against responding with drones for a sept 11th or pearl harbor type attack.
There seems to be a bit of that, and even I can admit to it.
I’m still a bit concerned about the disconnect between this and Hagel. Why was Hagel standard operating procedure but Brennan worthy of filibuster? Obviously he can’t answer now, but I’d like to know what Sen. Paul has to say about that. ·1 hour ago
Paul appears to support the notion that the President has the authority to choose his own cabinet…hence his vote for Hagel. He isn’t necessarily voting against Brennan, or so he has stated. But it was the Brennan testimony that Paul has been attempting to get to the bottom of initially, because Brennan would not give Paul an answer about what was the policy and guidelines for the use of drones domestically to hunt down terrorists. It was that clarification that Paul never got from Brennan or the White House.
I suspect the urge to avoid placing combatants in custody is strong. Who wants that legal and, possibly, hypocrisy exposing headache? ·7 minutes ago
I think that was brought up around Hour 4 or so. I can’t remember what he said about it. But I would say that the geographical issue is the key. Someone propogandizing or committing treason in the US is one matter. Actively consorting and counseling our sworn enemies in hostile territory or bandit-land, and thus outside of reach for arrest, is differnt.
What’s at issue is the power to kill Americans who are not attacking.
Everyone agrees about that.
Miniter is apparently misinformed. So is Paul Rahe. ·3 minutes ago
For once, I agree with Conor Friedersdorf and disagree with Paul Rahe. Surely, the apocalypse must now be upon us. ·57 minutes ago
Arrgh, me too. I heard NPR hacks covering the filibuster earlier today – they sounded extremely uncomfortable. Gotta love it.
Just not tonight. Or tomorrow. Or any time in the next few days.
When he’s done with this he’ll be all in! ·0 minutes ago
What an excellent idea.
Yep. Poor guy’s running out of material. Perhaps he should have an ipad with Ricochet on. He could start reading the main feed. ·0 minutes ago
He should start reading classic texts on natural rights, with a bottle of water, a box of no-doze, and a piddle-pack on the desk before him for the cameras to see.
Well, I have stuff I must do. But I like what I’ve heard. Go Paul!
It’s heartening to see almost universal praise coming from our side (and I’m aghast, even the ACLU) for one of our guys in the Senate. To people whining about needing a new Regean, this is as close as you’ll get in the 21st century. And in terms of strictly policy, I think Paul superior. There, I said it.
Let’s hope that this Administration has given a generous ‘gift card’ to every Republican who is running for Congress in 2014, who should be able to say:
“I will never vote to give President Obama the right to kill Americans with drones, on U.S. soil, etc. etc. etc., and
“my Democrat opponent is for our own government killing us with drones!”
Yep. Poor guy’s running out of material. Perhaps he should have an ipad with Ricochet on. He could start reading the main feed. ·0 minutes ago
No electronic communication devices on the Senate floor. Sorry.
This is a combination of two events I never thought I’d see. One is a real life filibuster (awesome). And the second is a debate as to whether or not the President has the authority to assassinate a US citizen. I can’t understand the sorry state of affairs that could lead us to this point. I feel like the question asked to Holder was a throw away question.
Of course the President cannot simply kill an American without due process of the courts. What’s wrong with you?
Of all the times the administration has lied, this couldn’t be one of them?
As far as Paul’s filibuster: I get the feeling it’s like that scene from Star Trek 5 where Kirk asks, “Why does God need a starship?” It’s a fine and admirable stand on his principles in a challenge to a God-like being, but I’m afraid that’s all it will be.
I don’t consider myself paranoid or an alarmist but I really don’t trust this lot running the country right now. The Obama administration is gangster government plain and simple – you really want to trust these people with deciding who gets a drone-launched missle down their cakehole?
Let’s say they blow up some guy’s house we him in it and claim the evidence went up in smoke – who’s going to get to the bottom of it? The media? Seen any evidence from Benghazi lately? Talked to any witnesses?
Me neither…
What’s at issue is the power to kill Americans who are not attacking.
Conor, if you have a second, could you link to the Administration claiming the right to assassinate non-attacking citizens on our soil? I haven’t seen this.
I haven’t either Scott, but I’m not sure that is the fundamental issue.
What is the limiting principle? Obviously it isn’t citizenship and lack of an imminent threat (Awlaki). I also doubt that it is posse comitatus, given that the use of drones on our soil is apparently okey dokie though there are no Constitutional or legislative grounds (I may be completely wrong on this score, for all I know Obamacare authorizes drone usage on our soil).
Aren’t we just left with Holder’s claim? Which seems to roughly boil down to: We can’t use drones to waste citizens on our soil because it’s Wednesday.
What am I missing Scott?
The targeting of drone attacks have considerably expanded the scope of “imminent threat”. It now includes anyone that is suspected of being an AQ operations person, and those who evidence a pattern that may show AQ activity. It is the application of this much looser standard to American citizens on American soil that Rand Paul is rightly concerned will be subject to abuse. The example of David Koresh, before any concrete actions were taken has been discussed. Just based on his preaching, which certainly encouraged others, would the US ATF have the right to simply drone attack his compound. Especially in light of what actually occurred in Waco, I hardly think Rand Paul is guilty of “scaremongering” to ask the question, and more importantly to push for an acknowledgment that Holder does not think the President’s authority to order such attacks would apply to citizens on US soil. Indeed, I want a US President who holds that view of the Constitution; trusting that a President won’t kill anyone that I wouldn’t is not a standard any of us should want.
Why so few?
And I know most ofthosesenators gained their office by defeating an establishment backed candidate.
So am I to expect that if Rand Paul or one of the others hadn’t been electedno senatorwould object to drone strikes in the US against American citizens?
None at all?
I find that amazing- and worrisome, to put it mildly.
Why isthat, exactly? Just what are they itching to do once people can’t shoot back?
I think I’ve seenthatbefore- and I think that’s why the Bill of Rights was appended to the Constitution in the first place.
Unfortunately most senators seem not to have read that document. ·4 hours ago
Perhaps they were still ‘mulling over’ what their reaction should be, not wanting to take position early on, only to regret it later.
There are, no doubt, several senators waking up this morning, who wish they had stood with Sen. Paul when he needed it!
I suspect the urge to avoid placing combatants in custody is strong. Who wants that legal and, possibly, hypocrisy exposing headache? ·7 minutes ago
I think that was brought up around Hour 4 or so. I can’t remember what he said about it. But I would say that the geographical issue is the key. Someone propogandizing or committing treason in the US is one matter. Actively consorting and counseling our sworn enemies in hostile territory or bandit-land, and thus outside of reach for arrest, is differnt. ·5 minutes ago
Roger that.
To chime in, no, Sen. Paul is not wrong, and Mr. Miniter would do well to, at minimum, accurately describe what Sen. Paul’s position actually is, which shouldn’t be all that hard to ascertain, considering he’s been repeating it for several hours now.
From the Journal:
“The country needs more Senators who care about liberty, but if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. He needs to know what he’s talking about.”
Wimps.
I just thought I would see what the top news on yahoo was “Lion Kills Worker at California Park”. The filibuster is not in top U.S. news stories but of course 4 of the 5 have to do with gun control so all political are the top story and the filibusterer is not one of them.At least Google has it as a top story.
So what are the odds someone it giving of Rand beating Strom Thurmond‘s 24 hour record?