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.
Victory for Rand Paul (and the Constitution)
This just in from the Washington Examiner:
Attorney General Eric Holder wrote Sen. Rand Paul,R-Ky., to confirm that President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American on U.S. soil in a non-combat situation, Obama’s spokesman announced today.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil,” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”
There, that wasn’t so difficult, was it?
Meanwhile, understandably angry at seeing the Republican Party emerge from its four year defensive crouch–behind Tea Party conservatives no less!– Senators McCain and Graham proferred this mature advice:
McCain, a staunch foreign policy hawk, said Thursday that Paul’s warnings that the U.S. could target “Jane Fonda” or “people in cafes” bring the debate into the “realm of the ridiculous.”
“If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids,” McCain said, adding: “I don’t think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) echoed these criticisms, adding that he was “disappointed” in the 13 Republican Senators who supported Paul’s filibuster last night.
Hopefully, the Republicans can get back to their comfort zone of quietly losing on optics and substance a full 100 percent of the time.
Published in General
Charles Krauthammer called Rand Paul’s fillibuster a stroke of political genius.
McCain and Graham: not so much.
McCain and Graham: not so much. ·6 minutes ago
…with a quotient of luck; the timing of the President’s dinner date with the ‘select’ Senate Republicans, and, of course, the weather…
I like the linkiness:
McCain brought us Palin; Palin brought us Rand Paul, Cruz, Rubio, and Mike Lee (inter alios).
Palin had to endorse McCain out of gratitude and loyalty, so she brought us McCain again.
But: Paul, Cruz, Rubio, and Lee caused McCain to kick himself in the butt. Graham is just a freebie.
She’s brilliant!
Re McCain and Graham, while I agree with their assessment that the whole episode was a silly strawman attack, Rand’s grandstanding was nevertheless a political winner — as strawman arguments often are, most notably for Obama. McCain and Graham should’ve just rolled their eyes and shushed. Publicly calling Rand’s attack unfair, while true, breaks ranks, in a way that Dems never would — again, as during the silly war-on-women attacks. ·36 minutes ago
Rand’s filibuster served up an event that the MSM could not ignore featuring a premise that could not be hidden: The Obama administration’s refusal to categorically rule out domestic drone strikes against American citizens. Along the way, the filibustering senators got to frame their concern in light of Obama’s other unconstitutional actions–largely ignored by the MSM–such as subverting the Senate’s advice and consent role in making NLRB appointments, then ignoring a federal court ruling.
The fact that Rand’s stand also forced Obama voters to confront their deepest loathings for G.W. Bush’s counter-terrorism policies is a political masterstroke.
Rand’s filibuster served up an event that the MSM could not ignore featuring a premise that could not be hidden: The Obama administration’s refusal to categorically rule out domestic drone strikes against American citizens.
To be clear, nobody categorically rules that out, Rand Paul included.
The fact that this is still not common knowledge speaks to Paul’s effectiveness in muddying the waters on the issue: A great many Americans now believe that the Obama administration’s position on drones is uniquely sinister, when in fact there’s broad consensus on this issue on both sides of the aisle, as Krauthammer stated last night.
That’s the beauty of strawman attacks. Cynically and ruthlessly speaking, “Well done, Rand”.
Genferie:
He was responding to two different questions in the letters you’ve referenced.
On Mar 4, the answer was in response to whether the gov’t could kill a citizen with a drone w/o trial. He said yes, but only in an extraordinary situation such as an imminent threat (with the obvious implication that it couldn’t be done w/o that extraordinary situation).
In the exchange with Cruz on Mar 6 (pre-filibuster) he was asked whether the gov’t could kill a citizen in a non-extraordinary situation, and said no (eventually, after treating it as though it was a stupid, unnecessary question, which it sorta was, in light of his answer above).
On Mar 7, post-filibuster, he answers that Mar 6 question again.
By responding as he did on Mar 7, Holder unwisely made it appear he’d finally “come around” on the issue, when in fact he’d been entirely consistent all along.
Dang, Scott – us red state folk seem to have irked you, my friend.
Just a bitter, irked person, Matt, even in the face of political victory. There’s a protien that causes this.
While I got you here, did you see there were six Big Ten schools ranked ahead of the best SEC school in the lastest higher ed rankings? Weird.
We’re dealing with people to whom the Constitution is either an irrelevance or an impediment and…and…strawmen may be harmed? Logical fallacies may be promulgated? Hyperbole may be employed? Feelings may be hurt???
Too high a price to pay. We’re better off letting them do what they want.
I agree with others that, of course, this statement from the Attorney General isn’t worth anything if you actually get taken out. And that “engaged in combat” could be twisted into all sorts of things (‘he was engaging in class warfare!’). But that is what elections are for.
I wouldn’t call Paul’s achievement Alinsky-ite. But I’m all for Alinsky-ite wins. ·5 hours ago
This brilliant move by Paul was preparation of the battle-space. It was not the battle, let alone the war. Those in Congress (yes, you McCain and Graham) who don’t get this are hopelessly out of it and a hazard to our side.
Scott, I’m an ACC guy, so I regard the SEC as a fantastic collection of lightning-fast troglodytes. The Big Ten exists to serve those who prefer to hide from the sun and can’t count to twelve, just as the ten Big 12 schools are for people who can’t handle subtraction.
What bugs me only is our inability to see it, or our refusal to acknowledge it.
But it was most certainly a win. An Alinsky-ite win.
All true.
Will anyone ask Mr. Holder AND the President to define their terms? On the record? What does “combat” mean? How about on “U.S. soil”? How do they define “non-combat”?
And the joke’s on us, because they’ll write all the definitions we want, and snigger. Just like they did with this one — laughing up their sleeve. Holder’s statement leaves it wide open.
OK.
I think this is a very charitable interpretation of what Holder says. To my eyes, the letter tries desperately not to say anything at all. “It is possible to imagine … an extraordinary circumstance … Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.” (Just hope you’re not at Pearl Harbour or in the WTC while he’s doing that…)
In particular, I don’t think you can draw the inference that you do from that letter: that extraordinary circumstances (whatever they might be) are necessary.
Thus, as you point out, Cruz comes at him from the other angle: the terrorist in the cafe who does not pose an imminent threat.
(contd)
(contd from #71)
Eventually, reluctantly, Holder sort of says (by way of retrospective definition) that he agrees that the US government does not have the power to take out the terrorist in Cruz’s hypothetical. (I think it would be dangerous to attribute the precise terms of Cruz’s summing up to Holder.)
In the letter of the 7th Holder answers a different question again. The text of that letter (for those following along who haven’t clicked the links) is:
(Let us put to one side the awful construction of that question.) It is not clear to me that ‘imminent threat’ and ‘engaged in combat’ mean the same, or even similar things.
To summarise:
If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep it….
We are closing the detention facility at Guantanamo….
The system worked as intended….
Ambassador Stevens’ death was caused by a protest over a video….
et cetera…et alia…ad nauseum.
@Scott, your forbearance is admirable, but I’ve been lied to affirmatively by this administration far too many times already – my credibility account is overdrawn. (As far as the government is concerned, I never keep any more in there than the minimum balance for free checking.) Therefore, there will be no more charitable interpretations of the stuff they say.
John McCain:
This Bud’s for you.
Especially if they were eating fava beans and washing it down with a nice Chianti.
#firstworldproblems
On a rare occasion, the timing of something is exquisite:
There is nobody who could have orchestrated the synchronizing of:
Sen. Rand Paul’s thirteen-hour filibuster and
President Obama’s first dinner invitation to the Senate’s ‘chosen’ ones!
There is nobody who could have orchestrated the synchronizing of:
Sen. Rand Paul’s thirteen-hour filibuster and
President Obama’s first dinner invitation to the Senate’s ‘chosen’ ones! ·0 minutes ago
Do you think they played a game of Clue afterward?
Answer: Professor Plum with the drone in the Whitehouse.
Will everyone named McCain please leave the country.
Words mean things, and be careful what Eric Holder means by “combat” there.
The wording of the authorizing statute allows the President to make the determination with no oversight.
If he says Jane Fonda is helping al-Qaeda, then she is. Even if she isn’t. Remember Obama’s lawyers have already stated the decision is not reviewable.
There is nobody who could have orchestrated the synchronizing of:
Sen. Rand Paul’s thirteen-hour filibuster and
President Obama’s first dinner invitation to the Senate’s ‘chosen’ ones! ·3 minutes ago
All optics, of course. Obama resorted to a bipartisan photo-op because of a 7-point drop in his approval rating, itself brought on by the rare Republican failure-to-cave over Sequestageddon.
Of all the obsequious, lily-livered….
John, Lindsey…sit down and shut up. If you can’t skin, grab a leg. If you can’t grab a leg, stay out of the way.
There is nobody who could have orchestrated the synchronizing of:
Sen. Rand Paul’s thirteen-hour filibuster and
President Obama’s first dinner invitation to the Senate’s ‘chosen’ ones! ·3 minutes ago
All optics, of course. Obama resorted to a bipartisan photo-op because of a 7-point drop in his approval rating, itself brought on by the rare Republican failure-to-cave over Sequestageddon. ·0 minutes ago
You are, undoubtedly, correct, BUT
did the President know, before Senator Paul rose on the floor of the Senate, that a filibuster was about to start?
Not to mention liver-spotted.
It occurs to me that McCain has shown himself not to be taken seriously.
As if he ever was.
Eric Hines
You are, undoubtedly, correct, BUT
did the President know, before Senator Paul rose on the floor of the Senate, that a filibuster was about to start? ·1 minute ago
I can’t see how anyone would know, since it was the contemporaneous refusal of Holder and Brennan to categorically rule out military execution of American citizens on American soil that led to the filibuster
However, it is a sweet coincidence that Paul’s educational event last night rained on the otherwise inevitable story about Obama–the Great Conciliator once more– reaching across the aisle in a gesture of friendship.
McCain, Graham- we do take Paul, Cruz, et al seriously. Not you, though. Not anymore. Please get lost.