The New York Times Made Light of Senator Rand Paul’s Anti-Brennan, Anti-Drone Filibuster — Instead of Asking Why Only 7 Republicans and 1 Democrat Were Willing to Oppose President Obama’s Assertion of Kingly Power

07 March 2013

I remember when the “American” stood for something other than sheep-like behavior — today, with lawful purpose crumbling all around us, that day seems to be over

Yesterday, we were treated to the sad spectacle of a “Tea Party” Senator standing virtually alone in trying to draw attention to the Constitutionally-subversive actions of President Obama’s drone murder program.

After receiving a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder that did not rule out using drones to kill American citizens on American soil, the often abrasively independent thinking Republican Senator Rand Paul had had enough:

A small group of Republicans, led by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, stalled the Senate on Wednesday by waging a nearly 13-hour old-school, speak-until-you-can-speak-no-more filibuster over the government’s use of lethal drone strikes — forcing the Senate to delay the expected confirmation of John O. Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency.

Mr. Paul, who opposes Mr. Brennan’s nomination, followed through on his plan to filibuster the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee after receiving a letter this month from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that refused to rule out the use of drone strikes within the United States in “extraordinary circumstances” like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

On Wednesday, Mr. Paul did exactly as promised, taking to the Senate floor shortly before noon and holding forth for 12 hours and 52 minutes.

Joining Paul were only a handful of his Senatorial colleagues:

Paul has since been joined in his symbolic effort by Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Pat Toomey (Pa.).

He has also gotten some bipartisan support from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.).

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) brought Paul an apple and a thermos of tea — a possible reference to the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, in which Jimmy Stewart brings out similar provisions.

“I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said.

“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.”

Paul began his filibuster at 11:47 a.m. Eastern time. At the start of the 1 p.m. hour, he was the only senator on the floor.

Two questions arise

These are:

(1) Was Senator Paul’s filibuster justified?

(2) If it was, why did so few others contribute to it?

Let’s start with Eric Holder’s superficially innocuous letter to Senator Paul

Adam Serwer, at Mother Jones, quoted the pertinent paragraphs — here split for online readability:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.

As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.

We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront.

It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.

For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

© 2013 Attorney General Eric Holder via Adam Serwer, Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil, Mother Jones (05 March 2013) (paragraphs split) (a copy of the full letter is posted, here)

Really, General Holder?

Note

“General” is the proper way to refer to Attorneys General, even though that terminology conflicts with military tradition.

Attorneys General are a much rarer species than military generals are. Their office is entitled respectful prestige.

At first review, Attorney General Holder’s letter seems innocuous. It appears to be saying that some extraordinary circumstance might justify killing a citizen on American soil with a drone attack.

A more thoughtful review indicates that Holder’s letter represents a much more dangerous precedent. It essentially says, “The President and I think that we can kill citizens with drones whenever we judge that circumstances make it necessary.”

Put the letter in its international context — the President is already killing whomever he wants, whenever he wants — abroad

There is no substantive due process involved in the American drone murder program, as it has been implemented on foreign soil. Even American citizens have been killed.

With his letter to Senator Paul, the Attorney General is now casually interjecting that, yes, we can do the same thing on American soil. If necessary.

And who will decide whether circumventing the Constitution and American law is necessary?

You guessed it, King Obama.

And whose nomination was Senator Paul trying to hold up? — John Brennan’s as CIA head

Brennan has been rumored to be the architect of President Obama’s drone murder program.

“Crazy” Rand Paul was eminently justified in conducting his filibuster attempt to get Americans to look at what the Administration is trying to do to overturn American liberties

Depressingly, almost everyone (who was cognizant of what was going on) treated Paul’s effort as mildly humorous diversion to their day.

The New York Times — and virtually every other media source — punted on grasping the real world relevance of Paul’s filibuster

The gist of the Times article was that it was funny that Senator Paul had to end his talking filibuster, when he had to pee.

Leave it to the Times to miss the most essential point when a Democrat is in power. Had President George W. Bush attempted even one-hundredth of President Obama’s liberty-destroying machinations, the Grey Lady would have been in a rabid lather.

The moral? — It is disheartening that the Senate did not arise en masse to join Senator Paul in his lonely opposition to the New American Monarchy

Cowardice is the result of fearing terrorists — more than we treasure our freedoms.

Senator Paul, Tea Party extremist, and Senator Ron Wyden — the sole Democrat with the courage and acumen to join Paul — went up in my estimation yesterday.

PeteFree.com

The New York Times Made Light of Senator Rand Paul’s Anti-Brennan, Anti-Drone Filibuster — Instead of Asking Why Only 7 Republicans and 1 Democrat Were Willing to Oppose President Obama’s Assertion of Kingly Power