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
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. ·8 minutes ago
Ricochet, classic texts on natural rights…Same dif.
The Civil War is also a problematic example. Once the southern states seceeded, they were (arguably) no longer citizens of the USA, but rather citizens of the CSA. There was also a formal declaration of war, which is at least as good as a warrant, IMHO.
·1 hour ago
Sorry, don’t want to sidetrack the conversation here, but I think you’re wrong. Confederate soldiers were never citizens of the CSA, because the CSA never existed. That was the whole point of the Civil War. Also, what do you mean there was a formal declaration of war? That’s news to me…
To appreciate the utter wrongness of Mr. Miniter’s position one needs only reflect on this possibility: There are TWO circumstances under which “people take up arms against our country”. The first is the one the President apparently anticipates: a home-grown or Taliban-inspired terrorist who wants to ruin our country. The second, and I think increasingly more likely, is a second revolution against an overweening and increasingly despotic central government. In that latter case, the government would then be indistinguishable from an communist or banana republic dictatorship; from a Tienanmen Square-crushing dictatorship. It is imperative that our congressional branch of government make it clear to all future, Constitution-supporting law enforcement and military personnel, that a revolution against the government BY the people is a very different legal matter than a terrorist assault against our nation….regardless of how similar they may seem on the surface. Rand Paul is most assuredly on the right side of the Drone strike issue.
The issue is that Obama won’t say that he doesn’t have the power to do it. This smacks of total ignorance of the Constitution and should be highlights as much as possible.
Sure, I doubt Obama would ever do send a drone out like this. But once you get people who won’t say that it’s impossible, who knows what the next person will be like? ·1 hour ago
Exactly so. I’m with Paul on this, hoping he can draw Obama and or Holder out in the open and say, one way or the other. I couldn’t care less about Brennan.
And, it’s gratifying to see someone who cares about liberty and rights grabbing a stick and stirring up the cesspool out there.
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.
For what it’s worth, this is the document that they were discussing when the question of whether the assassination power would hold within the borders of the US. The paper, I don’t think covers that question. It only talks about using drone attacks against al Qaeda and like groups.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
Especially when it turns out the oath basis for that warrant was fallacious – the BATF agent lied.
Late as usual it seems,..but for Scott and some others, my support for Senator Paul’s filibuster doesn’t derive from an outright claim on the part of the administration that it has the right to assassinate American citizens on US soil. These people are much too slippery with the language to say something like that. Instead, we have Holder’s letter to Senator Paul, part of which states, “…the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.” He could have expended exactly as many keystrokes by substituting the word, “authority,” for “intention,” but chose not to do so. Coming from that bunch of lawyers, this is troubling.
Senator Cruz had to practically blast a concession from Holder today to the effect that the administration lacks constitutional authority to launch drone strikes against US citizens, on US soil, who do not pose an imminent threat. The problem is that a lack of constitutionality hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from a host of other activities. I think Senator Paul is right to go to the mat for something in writing.
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……
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?
In the Holder/Cruz exchange, Cruz brings up exactly the non-attacking-guy-in-the-cafe scenario that Paul fears. Holder says that such a non-threatening situation would be inappropriate for a drone strike. After a back and forth and some prying by Cruz, Holder says by “inappropriate” he means not constitutional.
We can say he’s lying, I guess, but we can always say that.
I’m also thinking there is a difference between Military action and Police action against US Citizens on US soil. I haven’t seen this distinction on this thread yet. (only half through)
Rand Paul knows, and the Obama Administration knows, and they know he knows, that it is the second possible scenario that Sen. Paul (and most of us here) have in mind!
Another one of those comments I can’t give more than one “like” – so I republish it.
After mulling this all day, Concretevol, this is just about where I come down. Rand Paul is standing up to the president on behalf of individual liberty. There may be fine-grained arguments suggesting his stand on Brennan is half-wrong–maybe even more than half wrong. But you know what? Good for Rand Paul all the same.
This sounds like there’s something personal here, that is clouding your, usual, clear thinking.
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 a 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, at the outset, when he needed it! ·40 minutes ago
After mulling this all day, Concretevol, this is just about where I come down. Rand Paul is standing up to the president on behalf of individual liberty. There may be fine-grained arguments suggesting his stand on Brennan is half-wrong–maybe even more than half wrong. But you know what? Good for Rand Paul all the same. ·0 minutes ago
Peter, I say this with love:
If after thinking about this all day you’ve concluded “Good for Rand Paul” even if his stand might be more than half wrong, then you should sleep on it.
I guess POTUS figures if he does it himself he can’t be accused of creating a death panel.
#BeingPresidentIsHard
I’m in support of Paul’s calling Obamao and Holder on this, and I like the display of backbone. The constitution matters. I think Miniter is wrong, as is Dr. Rahe. (And it pains me to say that… About Dr. Rahe at least.) Barbara Kidder – your post reference to Germany 1939 and people simply disappearing is absolutely right on target. To paraphrase Dr. Benjamin Carson, “if you don’t think it can happen here……..”
·30 minutes ago
Paul stated at one point this afternoon (I paraphrase heavily, but it’s along the same lines), “I take the president at his word. I don’t think he’s going to use a drone to kill an American citizen on US soil. But what don’t know is who will be president in 10 years, in 20 years. Do we want to give them this power?”
A Republican with backbone; how about that? Nice to know a few still exist.
Paul stated at one point this afternoon (I paraphrase heavily, but it’s along the same lines), “I take the president at his word. I don’t think he’s going to use a drone to kill an American citizen on US soil. But what don’t know is who will be president in 10 years, in 20 years. Do we want to give them this power?” ·5 minutes ago
In that case, he’s more generous than I could be.
Last night I was a hundred posts in and couldn’t contain it to 100 words.
My reply is here.
That’s because he claims the U.S. gov’t has the authority in certain extraordinary circumstances, as Rand Paul himself concedes it does.
That’s because he claims the U.S. gov’t has the authority in certain extraordinary circumstances, as Rand Paul himself concedes it does. ·0 minutes ago
The problem is that the administration is blowing smoke and refuses to say what circumstances they wouldn’t use drone strikes. That is what the entire filibuster revolves around.
Let me see. A lying narcissist coke addict who has wiped his backside with our constitution, wants the power to drone kill me on a whim. So does his murderous atty general and our less than honorable intelligence agencies. He has been buying up billions of rounds of ammo and discussed gangs of jackbooted brown shirts prowling our streets to enforce government rule. He wants to take all my guns eventually, not just the ones he’s asking for now. I trust him less than I can throw him.
After mulling this all day, Concretevol, this is just about where I come down. Rand Paul is standing up to the president on behalf of individual liberty. There may be fine-grained arguments suggesting his stand on Brennan is half-wrong–maybe even more than half wrong. But you know what? Good for Rand Paul all the same. ·36 minutes ago
It is rare indeed to hear any restriction on the power of the state argued for on the floor of the Senate. It’s nice to see….
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. ·3 hours ago
He was asked about it and I suggest you read his answer verbatim. But, my understanding was that he held off on approving Hagel until it became apparent that other GOP members would not support him in his questioning. He has stated that he believes the president has a right to pick his own cabinet so unless Paul finds something egregious, he is likely to allow the president his pick. Which brings us to Brennan.
Just as Rand asked many questions re: Benghazi relative to Hagel, he began asking questions about the administration’s and Brennan’s understanding of the drone policy. When he finally got an answer from Holder and the Justice Department, he found something he considered egregious.
An hour ago, on the floor, he said “I have allowed the president to pick his political appointees…But I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution.”
It seems entirely boneheaded to me that Holder or Obama would not just pay lip service and say, “Sure, we promise not to bomb non-threatening Americans.” Why pick this issue to suddenly be so…suddenly honest about their intentions? I’m wondering what their current strategy is right now. Maybe praying it will end and that it won’t receive coverage so they don’t have to come out and look like they were defeated by a one-man wrecking crew.
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.
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.
In the Holder/Cruz exchange, Cruz brings upexactlythe non-attacking-guy-in-the-cafe scenario that Paul fears. Holder says that such a non-threatening situation would be inappropriate for a drone strike. After a back and forth and some prying by Cruz, Holder says by “inappropriate” he means not constitutional.
Scott, isn’t he really saying that it isn’t authorized by the Constitution?
That is not the same thing (I think*) as saying it is inherently Unconstitutional.
Isn’t garden variety Congressional legislation sufficient to authorize the use of military assets in states?
*Though I may be way off, I’m no attorney.
After mulling this all day, Concretevol, this is just about where I come down. Rand Paul is standing up to the president on behalf of individual liberty. There may be fine-grained arguments suggesting his stand on Brennan is half-wrong–maybe even more than half wrong. But you know what? Good for Rand Paul all the same. ·0 minutes ago
Peter, I say this with love:
If after thinking about this all day you’ve concluded “Good for Rand Paul” even if his stand might be more than half wrong, then you should sleep on it. ·53 minutes ago
If Mr. Robinson’s best is to congratulate Rand Paul, even though he may be half-wrong, then some may call that,
‘damning with faint praise’.