As of this writing, Senator Rand Paul is still on his feet filibustering the nomination of John Brennan to be director of the CIA. But as he eventually made clear, his goal is not so much to actually stop Brennan, as it is to make a meal of the comments made this morning by Attorney General Eric Holder when he was pressed about U.S. policies on drone strikes on terrorists during an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked whether the government considered it had the right to use an armed drone on an American citizen within the borders of the United States, Holder didn’t give the senators a straight answer. They were entitled to such an answer, as well as to the documents they requested. But those who are now saying that the dustup over using drones in the United States is the sole point of Paul’s filibuster hasn’t been listening closely to him as he held the Senate floor.
Paul and other members of the Senate (including several Republicans and Democrat Ron Wyden) who assisted his filibuster by asking questions to give him brief breaks have a point when it comes to the possible use of drones on U.S. citizens in America. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances when using the same tactics being used on al-Qaeda operatives in the Middle East here at home would be justified. As I wrote earlier, invoking Adolf Hitler and George Orwell’s “Big Brother” in a discussion of current counter-terrorism strategies is inflammatory and misleading. But there is little doubt that operations in the homeland must be conducted differently, starting with the fact that the CIA is not empowered to act in the United States.
Yet even if we concede that, as we should, Paul’s real beef is something else. The attempt to shift the discussion about drones to the fanciful suggestion that the Justice Department might target Tea Party members is a red herring. Paul’s core objection to the drone program remains what he calls the “perpetual war” against Islamist terrorists.
Most Americans understand that limiting American attacks on terrorists to those actively in the field shooting at American soldiers in Afghanistan or those caught in the act of carrying out an attack on other targets anywhere else is not sensible. Al-Qaeda operatives must be hunted down and, if possible, killed wherever they are, be it in their hideouts, while driving a car or sitting in a public venue. Most also have no problem with such tactics being applied to U.S. citizens who have joined al-Qaeda and are actively taking part in a war on America.
But Paul does seem to oppose the drone strikes. Indeed, anyone who heard all or most of his several hours of talk on the subject heard a great deal that shows he thinks the “perpetual war” against the Islamists is the real problem.
The unfortunate fact is that Americans will have to continue fighting al-Qaeda. This is not because our leaders lust for war or are enraptured with drone technology, but because our enemies believe they are engaged in war that will go on for generations until we succumb. Winning that struggle will require patience and endurance as well as the will to seek out these enemies wherever they may be plotting. Targeted killings of these terrorists are necessary and effective. But Paul’s core critique of the administration is not about a theoretical drone attack in the United States but about this very tactic.
Those who worry about Barack Obama’s fast and loose approach to the Constitution do well to keep close tabs on what the government is up to. But the president’s drone use against al-Qaeda is both constitutional and necessary. Conflating this policy with a plan to kill American dissidents or non-combatants sleeping in their beds here is merely a tactic aimed at transforming the debate about drones in a way that will make the curtailment of foreign strikes possible.
We can all take pride in the willingness of members of the U.S. Senate to stand up for the Bill of Rights and against the unchecked expansion of government power. But today’s filibuster is rooted in Paul’s unhappiness with American counter-terrorism tactics abroad, not those that have never been used at home.
Besides, isn't Holder ultimately right here? It's not all that hard to imagine scenarios in which a President would be empowered to kill American citizens within US territory. Wouldn't Lincoln have had the right to assassinate a leading Confederate general, who we can imagine retaining nominal American citizenship if it would have protected him? It's easy to generate contemporary and future examples–they may all be unlikely, but Holder was clear about that–a Mexican rebellion in the southwest, a mini-intifada in some future Michigan, for the leftists among us a white supremacist revolt in Idaho–if, in any of these cases, the rebels had acquired enough (US) territory to make law enforcement ineffective and create the kind of invasion or rebellion scenario envisioned by the Constitution, it seems to me the President would obviously have the right to target the leaders of such a rebellion, even if they weren't immediately involved in carrying out attacks. I think Holder was being uncharacteristically responsible in refusing to rule out such a possibility. n nMoreover, there's something a little weird about this, and it might go in some unanticipated directions. I agree with Tobin about Paul's larger, idiosyncratic aim here, but, even more, I think the conservative excitement about all this follows from the sense that we can imagine Obama or some other Democratic President using this assumed power to take out peaceful Tea Party-type leaders, which would suggest some real paranoia bubbling underneath all this. I yield to no one in my contempt for today's left, Obama very much included, and my sense for the limitless aims they pursue and means they employ–but the fear that he is likely to start using violence in domestic struggles is very disproportionate, and not something that should be fanned, explicitly or implicitly. It will cause us to lose focus on the things they are really doing and those we can do in response.
All it takes, polly anna, is a new definition of domestic terrorist threat. Don't forget BIg Sis ran one up the flag pole shortly after she began leading the DHS. Remember? A close eye was needed to watch religious anti-government extremists and returning vets. Few saluted the flag so she slipped it back into the top drawer. I am sure if given enough time you could come up with a rational for gas chambers and ovens.
Yes, they can redefine "terrorist threat" and if they can do that they can also say they have a constitutional right to do so, even if they say otherwise now. Which means extracting a promise or commitment from this administration now means absolutely nothing. But the enormous satisfaction apparently enjoyed by this meaningless victory will probably make conservatives increasingly addicted to such empty highs. What Paul has really accomplished is to enable conservatives to join in the most fervent fantasy since 9/11, the fantasy that ultimately got Obama elected: that we can erase 9/11 from our political life.
This Paul character is all mixed up , and obviously possesses a below average intellect. There are numerous reasons to oppose the Islamic stooge Brennan, but drone strikes are not among them. The problem with Brennan and his boss Obama is that they see Al Qaeda as the ONLY enemy the free world has. All other Islamo-fascists such as Hizbollah, Hamas , and the Muslim Brotherhood are OK guys to "Al Quds" Brennan. This is the real problem here, but as usual you can count on a Paul, Ron or Rand , to get it wrong.
One more thing: there seems to be emerging among some conservatives the fantasy that the movement might be unified and reunited around defense of the constitution against its violators, especially the lawless presidency of Obama. This is understandable, given all the disagreements about strategy and tactics, and uncertainty regarding shared principles that have emerged around same sex marriage, immigration, means of resisting Obama, war and peace, etc. But this fetishization of the Constitution, leaving aside the fact that once that becomes the central icon of the movement, all kinds of disagreements will emerge regarding constitutional interpretation, fails to realize that political urgency and possibility doesn't correspond with the "degree" of brazenness of a particular violation of the constitution. Perfectly constitutional and yet nevertheless destructive actions will often be just as important to resist as overtly unconstitutional acts. Having a strict and venerable rule doesn't excuse us from thinking. n nOK, one more thing. Paul's kind of libertarianism, at least the kind on display here, has something crucial in common with leftism: a demand for rights without responsibility. Is it too much to ask that if you want to claim the rights, immunities and privileges of an American citizen, that you at least refrain from encouraging global networks of maniacs to slaughter your fellow citizens? If Paul were to propose a way to strip American citizens who declare or join a war against their own country of their citizenship, he might be more credible here.
Oh so give the president the authority to first take away the troublesome citizen's citizenship and THEN he can zapum with the drone. Questions of credibility begin with you, not Senator Paul.
OK, so I'll ask you: should someone, in the US or abroad, broadcasting globally in support of jihadist operations against Americans (someone calling on Muslims worldwide and here to strap on their semtex belts and head for the nearest mall) continue to be considered an American citizen?
Tobin is spot on with this one. Paul's real motivation is aiding and abetting al-Qaida, as was his fathers. Neither the Obama Administration or the Obamedia ever take a shot at Ron or Rand Paul, because they are too busy shoving him to the top of TEA Party Hill so as to poison the public image of the TEA Party and hopefully, make Paul the nominee in 2016 to set us up for a landslide Democrat victory replicating 2008. You people supporting this false prophet Rand Paul, had better wake up.
Hate Rand Paul first, listen to what he has to say later. Well at least you didn't call him a tea bagger.
If Paul's intent, as you claim, is to generally curtail the use of drones, blame Obama, whose capricious use of the damned things has cost the lives of so many innocents, undermined the credibility of US foreign policy, subverted our intelligence-gathering efforts, and fed the al-Qaida recruitment effort inspired by "blowback". If you accuse him of being insufficiently attuned to the threats the country faces, consider the dangers also of a president who can –among other egregious acts– ignore the War Powers Act without opposition, as well as the danger to the Constitution of a government that can invent and expand all manner of extra-constitutional measures in the conveniently ambiguous pursuit of a war against "terrorism".