Tags: 
Categories: 
One of the most fascinating dynamics I have ever seen is playing out before our eyes in the Senate right now. At about noon E.D.T today, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul took the dais in the United States Senate and declared “I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the C.I.A.,” Mr. Paul began. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
Senator Paul is filibustering the nomination of John O. Brennan to head the Central Intelligence agency. Mr. Paul, an outspoken conservative senator made the decision to filibuster the Brennan nomination after receiving correspondence from United States Attorney General Eric Holder that indicated that the United States would consider the use of deadly drone strikes against its own citizens. While many on the right have opposed the Brennan nomination, they are unexpectedly being joined by traditional left leaning groups, most notably the American Civil Liberties Union.
On Wednesday afternoon, Christopher Anders, Senior Legislative Council at the ACLU announced that they were strongly supporting the Rand Paul filibuster:
“It’s certainly a courageous and historic effort by Senator Rand Paul and his colleagues, who are now increasing in numbers and coming to the fore in support of his filibuster,” said Anders. “The information Senator Paul is looking for goes to the very core of what the US is and who Americans are as a people.” Anders pointed out that the information Paul seeks is easy for the administration to hand over – it “ought to be a no-brainer,” he said. “It ought to be upsetting for everyone, all Americans of both parties, to not be able to get a straight answer to what is a very straightforward question from Senator Paul.” (Anders)
Anders went on to explain that the Department of Justice could post the legal memos in question on the internet within an hour, or Xerox them and send them to the floor of the Senate. “The American people have a right to know,” said Anders. “Senator Paul is right to push for that information and I think he’s doing a very good job of exercising his constitutional duty as a member of Congress in our system of checks and balances to help serve as a check on the executive branch, on the president.” Anders called the administration’s stonewalling “inexcusable.” The standards apparently applied by the administration, he continued, “are not standards recognized by any court in the land, any court anywhere in the world.”
There was another small break from the left when Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said that while he had voted in favor of Mr. Brennan’s nomination at Tuesday’s Senate Intelligence Committee meeting and plans to vote for him again on the Senate floor, he believed that Mr. Paul “has made a number of important points” about the administration’s lethal drone program and the potential for targeting American citizens on United States soil. “I think Senator Paul and I agree that this nomination also provides a very important opportunity for the United States Senate to consider the government’s rules and policies on the targeted killings of Americans and that, of course, has been a central pillar of our nation’s counterterror strategy,” Mr. Wyden said. He added that he felt that “the executive branch should not be allowed to conduct such a serious and far-reaching program by themselves without any scrutiny, because that’s not how American democracy works.”
It will be interesting to see how the anti-war “peaceful” left reacts to this challenge. I have new respect for Senator Paul.
)…
I will come back once again since i have saved as a favorite it. Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and continue to help others….
I watched Sen. Paul for about three hours today, and I should say what I seen was a very concerened senator wanting answers to serious questions. And because of Sen. Paul I have an understanding about how things are done in D.C.
But what made me really feel good about the event, was when my Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden, a demoncrat, stood on the senate floor and commended Paul for his effort. Wyden also stated he wanted answers about the use of drones. This is an important subject and should not be washed aside like most appointee’s conformation have been in the past.
So it is seen that both senator’s are working towards the same goal, and that is what is impotant here. A demoncrat and a republican both working together. Their goal is to get an answer on the use of drones. I’m proud of both these senators.
Do you think you add to your credibility by referring to the opposing political party – half the country – as “demoncrats”? I say you lose all credibility.
What is it that makes Wyden – or any other Democrat – a “demon”?
Hey whoever you are! Scaredy-cat behind the curtain – did you really just use the word ‘credibility?’ Wow….
Welcome back, Christ-opher. Good to see the self-professed arbiter of the interwebs is still around.
Why do you see this as a challenge to the left?
Senators McCain and Graham have attacked Paul’s filibuster. Why?
Because the VAST MAJORITY of those in power in Washington, on the left AND right, don’t like it when the ability of the government to keep secrets is being challenge.
That entrenched position crosses party lines.
I see it as a challenge to the left because how can you be so adamant about the “inhumanity” of waterboarding and yet be OK with simply killing people without due process.
Other than that anon, brace yourself – we agree. I am furious and dissappointed in Senators McCain and Graham’s “business as usual” attack on Rand.
Well the implication of your statement is something like “at least the right is consistent in its inhumanity.”
When politics is involved, I’ll take as much opposition to inhumane acts as I can get.
anon, if your position is “I’ll take as much opposition to inhumane acts as I can get,” are you angry that more Democrats have not come out against the use of drones to kill people? Is it OK to kill people but not to make them feel like they are drowning for a few seconds? I actually can understand the use on non-lethal waterboarding in certain circumstances while opposing the use of drones to kill Americans and see those two positions as logically consistent. I do not see ANY logical consistency in the position of someone that opposes waterboarding but supports the use of drones to kill people.
Yes, I’m angry that more on the left have not come out in opposition to the use of drones to kill American citizens without due process.
I’m alarmed at the ever-growing powers invested in the Executive…but then this is a long growing trend that transcends party.
Do you approve of the use of drones, in separate strikes, to kill Anwar al Awlaki and his 16-year-old son, both American citizens?
anon, I am not ignoring your question – I am honestly thinking it over. One confusing and probably irrelevant fact in your comment is that the father and son were killed in separate air strikes whereas what I have found says that a drone sent a barrage of hell fire missles. Not sure that matters to my thoughts.
What is the alternative to drones? Human “assets”? I’ll take a drone any day.
I only point out that Awlaki’s son was killed in a separate strike to highlight that he wasn’t “collateral damage” in the strike on his father.
I haven’t been able to find any detail on the son, I have a hard time justifying that one though.
As to Awlaki, this is not meant as argument anon, I really want to parse this through with you.
1) Do you think the United States was justified in killing Bin Laden?
2) If no, stop there. If yes, would it make a difference to you if he was a U.S. citizen?
Yes, it makes a difference that Awlaki is an American citizen. American citizens are afforded Constitutional/judicial protections such as due process. In the Awlaki case, he was ALLEGED to be planning harm against the United States. The government, and ONLY the government, decided that this American citizen was guilty and worthy of assassination. Their position was essentially “trust us.”
By this logic, ANY American citizen living abroad who is spouting off plans to harm the United States is worthy of assassination by drone. No charges. No trial. Simply a guilty verdict by the Government followed by summary execution by drone.
As far as I can tell, al-Awlaki was never formally indicted. Never tried in absentia before a grand jury. Never convicted of anything. He was simply put on a kill list by a secret panel of senior government officials. THAT is the disturbing part of this…certainly even worse in the case of al-Awlaki’s son.
You are right, he was classified as a “combatant” and never indicted even though there was a legal debate about that very issue. That does seem like a really slippery slope for me. A little too close to Orwell for my tastes.
It seems that Snoopy can’t handle someone when they commend the demos for doing something great. Where did the word ‘demon’ come from? It wasn’t in my post. Snoopy must come to her/his senses. The purpose of my post was that I think it was outstanding that two senators, one from each party, worked togeather for a common goal.
As far as the demoncrats being ‘half the country’, if the folks who voted for the green party or any other political party, or if they hadn’t voted for someone by the color of their skin, they would have voted for the republican party, your socialist president would have lost the election.
You’re not very good at feigning innocence, Seems.
And “commending” is not “commending” when it’s done with tongue-in-cheek “demon-crat” references.
As for the rest of your post….pfffft. Wishful dreaming. Try again in 2016.
It seems to me’ Snoopy….that we will never see eye to eye on any matter. I try to look both ways before I remark on any issue. But you can’t see that. You seem to have a major problem understanding the intention of one’s thought. If you would think for just one minute that someone might be paying the demos a complement, you could save yourself some belittlement and time.
I now see you can’t take complements so I will not make that mistake again. Oh, BTW, I voted for Obama over Clinton in 08. I’ll never make that mistake again, trust me on that.
Passive-aggressive much, Seems? You’re confusing “complimenting” with “condescending”. You claim to look both ways when in fact you only glance left and walk right into traffic while staring right.
If you were intellectually honest, instead of desperately attempting to appear as such, you could save yourself some keystrokes.
Your “intention of thought” is as transparent as this article’s failed attempt to elevate Paul beyond his lowly stature in the Senate and it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out you’re attempting to be “witty”…to no avail.
Please add ‘tongue-in-cheek’ to your new-found lexicon along with ‘gaffe’.
And I predict you’ll get that opportunity to correct your “mistake” and vote for Clinton in 2016.
99% personal attack and just not that interesting to read.
Responding-in-kind. Valid critique.
“If you were intellectually honest, instead of desperately attempting to appear as such, you could save yourself some keystrokes.”
Now there’s the pot calling the kettle black.
100% personal attack and just not that interesting to read…from a rusty kettle.
I love an epic. I live for saga. I have decided to watch the entire Rand Paul filibuster on youtube. Currently I am a few minutes into hour five. As I sit here watching I keep remembering the question I asked old John Kenneth Galbraith way back in 1998.
JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH and ME
JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH
John Kenneth Galbraith gave a public talk in the main lobby of the town library that summer and I attended. The High Holies of the super elite Windham County liberal conspiracy were all in attendance and Ambassador Galbraith, I must admit, was rather fantastic. He told a wonderful story about the Kennedy brothers at Harvard in their college years. As I recall, Joe Jr. had started and operated a gambling scheme where he got his fellow students to bet their money against the numbers and the polls in an upcoming election where the results were a certainty. By playing on their party loyalties he was able to clean up when the results came out just as everyone knew they were going to anyway. I don’t remember which election or who was running but the story went that Joe K. bought himself a brand new motorcar with his winnings. Little brother John then financed himself a similar buggy and Joe was angry that John had matched him without the innovation and effort of his own scheme. The Windham County intelligencia just sopped this all up, favoring their Great Champion with groans and gasps and chuckles and I will admit that I was quite charmed as well.
Just before the talk began, a reporter with the Brattleboro Reformer was hopping around the audience interviewing people as to why they had chosen to attend. He asked me why I was there, noting that I was by far the youngest member of the crowd. I suspect he was also impelled to speak to me as I was the only one with my head shaved to the scalp and wearing black combat boots, black BDUs and a black t-shirt. I guess you could say I stuck out among all those tweeds and tennis shirts and golf pants. I told this newspaperman that I was very excited to draw air in the same room with a man who had done the same with many of the most famous, prominent and powerful people of the 20th Century. He scribbled down my words in shorthand and moved on. (They didn’t include my interview or name in their coverage of this blessed event the next day.)
Now I was a frequent visitor to that library in those days so this was my turf in a sense. In fact I had read all Galbraith’s books they had in their stacks in the days leading up to the evening in question. My favorite was a novel titled THE TRIUMPH. I got there early and took for myself a great seat, front row center. So I was but a few feet from the old man for the whole show and directly in his line of sight. I myself am a pretty short fellow. 5’5″ John Kenneth Galbraith was a huge guy. Tall as George Washington, I remember thinking. He sat there doing his thing and glaring at me frequently with profound disapproval. And you can believe me when I tell you that in that crowd he was not alone in this.
In the course of the program he told another tale. This one was about the first time he met France’s Charles de Gaulle. He explained that one thing he and de Gaulle had in common was their great height. I cannot remember what he said to de Gaulle in reference to this fact but apparently de Gaulle replied, “Monsieur Galbraith. As big men we have a great advantage. And we must be merciless to the little men.” And as he said this the entire audience – including myself – could not help but note that he was looking directly at me with a cold and devilish eye. A great puff of joyous laughter went up to the rafters then. I may have loved the old codger for a moment.
A Question and Answer period followed. People would raise their hands and ask this or that. It was all very polite and light and respectful. Keep in mind this was summer 1998. William Jefferson Clinton was President and the American public was just hearing the name Osama Bin Laden for the first time. Our embassies had just been bombed in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya.
I raised my hand over and over, only to be pointedly and repeatedly ignored until good manners demanded that I be heard. I stood up and asked the man, “Do you think it would be legal, ethical or otherwise permissible for the United States to attempt to assassinate Osama Bin Laden with a distance strike of some kind if this was safer for our servicemen than an attempt to arrest the man?”
Oh my God! When I said the ‘A word’ (think Kennedys) that crowd of stuffy old farts let out a synchronized moan that the English language fails me to describe. Ambassador Galbraith took it all in stride. He cocked his mighty head, thought about it for a moment and said, “No. We should never do that. We should do our jobs well and go in and get a hold of these fellows.” As he said this he mimed grabbing someone with his huge, spotted and papery hands.
This was better than three full calendars before 9/11.
Truth.
- CHRISTOPHER HAYDEN
Burlington, VT 01-28-12