Last year, for the first time in decades, Republicans lost the advantage on foreign policy in a presidential campaign. Exit polls showed that voters trusted Barack Obama more than Mitt Romney to handle an international crisis (57 percent trusted Obama, 50 percent trusted Romney). And of the small number of voters who put foreign policy as their top issue, Obama won by a margin of 56 percent to 33 percent. Part of this, of course, is due to the incumbent’s advantage. But Republicans, following the setbacks in the Iraq War and Afghanistan, will have a tough job restoring their advantage on foreign policy and national security issues.
Their current actions aren’t helping. Senator Rand Paul has won accolades from many on the right for his “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” filibuster. But however impressive his stamina, we must not forget what he was protesting against–the use of drone strikes which, when directed overseas, are supported by 83 percent of Americans and when directed against American citizens overseas are supported by 65 percent.
Admittedly, Paul focused on the use of drone strikes on American soil against American citizens who are not combatants–he was clever enough not to make his filibuster about drone strikes per se. But in the process he came across as a bit of a nut. No one imagines that this administration or any other is about to start launching Hellfire missiles in New York or Washington. In fact Attorney General Eric Holder finally issued a letter stating the obvious–that the administration cannot use drones or other weapons against American citizens on U.S. soil as long as they are not engaged in hostilities against the United States.
However, the administration is absolutely right to note that it has the right in extreme circumstances to use military force on American soil. If Rand Paul thinks otherwise, he should come out and explain his objections to Abraham Lincoln’s use of force to fight the Confederacy–or the use of troops to escort African-American kids to school in Little Rock in 1957. Instead of addressing the issue squarely, Paul came up with far-fetched scenarios such as the U.S. government killing Jane Fonda because she was protesting the Vietnam War.
It is all too easy for the nuances of the debate to get lost and for voters to gain the impression that Republicans are against drone strikes in general.
Republicans are only reinforcing this impression of weakness on national security by enthusiastically supporting the sequester that is keeping Navy ships from sailing and Army troops from training. Republican strategists are right that most Americans support the sequester overall by a margin of 61 percent-33 percent, but they should note that by almost that same margin they oppose cuts to military spending.
By indiscriminately embracing sequestration and by making anti-drone noises Republicans are making it increasingly hard to recover the advantage on national security issues that they maintained ever since the 1960s.
Rand's point is, do you really want to go down the path of drones flying about the US as an unaccountable unelected unilateral judge and jury handing out missile justice inside the United States. Even some of the 'drones' on MSNBC claim to be a bit worried that some day Man-GodBama won't be President and then that will be too much power to put in the hands of mere mortals. Yes yes we understand they have these committees and commissions and courts and such to 'ensure' that innocent people don't murdered. but their own point, their own logic says we needn't worry because (of course) this would only be used in extreme circumstances to head off the proverbial terrorist attack about to happen in the next 10 seconds…..which obviates all these checks and balances they're trying to sell us. The point is not Chris Matthews laughing about Rand Paul's statement about Jane Fonda. The issue is, either there's this long process that nearly guarantees with 100% certainty they're doing to the right thing and we know what that right thing is, or, we're supposed to fall back on this 'imminent danger' argument which circumvents all these controls by design. It would seem that neither of those things is either reliable nor accurate so we're left with 'Hope'. We hope they don't decide to lob a Hellfire missile at a van full of bad guys who it turns out aren't bad guys and there was no danger and the 5 cars next to the van that also got destroyed were….well…collateral damage? n nA little too Judge Dredd for me.
Gee, I thought Rand's underlying point was about abuse of power and the virtual lawlessness of the current administration. n nAs to those polls? Let me see: a majority of Americans who showed up to vote re-elected the worst President in modern American history. If they "trust" Obama more than a GOP president on foreign affairs, then they are stupid and ignorant. So, Mr. Boot, tell us again about why these "polls" "matter?"
Max, I like your stuff (and really liked War Made New), but this post was perhaps my least favorite of yours. Rand Paul was absolutely right to make the point that he did. (One place he might have erred was that he focused on govt use of drones to kill Americans, when the real issue is the gov't taking the life of an American on US soil *by any means* without due process). No one expects Obama to drone strike an American on US soil. But what about 40 years from now? Are we so sure that our Prez in 2053 wouldn't use the "enemy combatant loophole" on some "undesirable" US citizen? History is replete with instances of govts eventually taking a mile when given an inch. Best to strangle this idea in the crib.
"However, the administration is absolutely right to note that it has the right in extreme circumstances to use military force on American soil. If Rand Paul thinks otherwise, he should come out and explain his objections to Abraham Lincoln’s use of force to fight the Confederacy–or the use of troops to escort African-American kids to school in Little Rock in 1957." n nThis is a non-sequitur Max. Lincoln went to (traditional-style, with blue/gray uniforms) war to prevent the South from seceding (and to destroy slavery). That's a far cry from Lincoln ordering that someone's head be blown off as they were walking down the street because that person is suspected of being a Confederate spy or something. And as for 1957, the troops were *protecting* American citizens, not killing them.
Max puts his faith in Oboutme. Senator Paul and I put our faith in the Constitution. Max thinks Senator Paul wasn't really talking about what was talking about. Senator Paul was to clever to talk about what he was really talking about. This from a commentator that doesn't know what he is talking about. Or maybe this commentator is just too clever to know what he is talking about.
Rand Paul's spoken point was a little silly; chances are slim any American president is going to order a drone strike on fellow Americans who disagree with his party's positions or US government policy. But I agree that the administration should've more clearly said so. (I suspect that they couldn't believe anyone aside the conspiracy nut fringes would think it possible…) n nBut I took his filibuster more broadly as a repudiation of the unitary executive theory and as a reassertion of Congress' place in the "checks and balance" between the branches of government. Drones are (or should be) just another tool in the defense arsenal, and I suspect few see them as more evil than other weapons. The problem is the lack of Congressional oversight and explicitly defined rules about their use. No President should be able to make a kill list–of anyone, no matter how objectively evil–and wipe people off the face of the Earth without oversight and input from the other branches of government. n nEvery President needs to answer to Congress, the judiciary, and the American people. There is no acting on one's own. There need to be clear rules, and oversight to make sure that the President and those who carry out the drone missions are abiding by them, just like with any other military mission (which is why they should be done by the military, rather than the CIA.) n nBut then, I'm a liberal, so what do I know…
Unbelievable that an article which admits within it's own text that it's subject matter is a straw man was ever allowed to go to print. This is what passes for journalism these days. Pathetic.
Wrong. Rand Paul is " changing the dynamic" as the inside-the-beltline crowd likes to say. What wins here is the sight of a Congressman talking for 13 hours about a matter of Constitutional principle, against a president who is grabbing more executive power than ever but who campaigned on its opposite. That matters way more to people than your hair-splitting over who and when someone is an enemy, as a way to justify zero restraint of military power. n nThe whole point is to challenge the creeping accumulation of unchecked power that happens when pragmatism trumps principle. The military always gets a free pass from the right , yet the Constitution specifically puts military control into civilian hands and Congressional checks on the power of the commander in chief. The reason for that is that, after executive power, the second greatest threat to liberty is the military. Either American citizenship means something or it doesn't.
The notion that the Administration would use armed drones in the USA is not farfetched. They were seriously talking about using armed drones to go after that rogue cop (Dorner), and he was only one guy! Although one could argue that he was in combat and using a drone to shoot hellfires at him would be legitimate, come on. Such use would entail more collateral damage than is usually acceptable in police operations. I could certainly see this Administration using drones or other robots to kill someone who wasn't in combat, but got a load of classified information the Administration didn't want leaked. To me, the only legitimate uses of armed drones in the USA would be to shoot down a hijacked plane so it couldn't be flown into a building, stopping armed incursions at the border (including at sea), or dealing with an actual rebel (or enemy) force that had armed control of territory. So using predators against a Mexican drug gang's incursion into US Territory would be OK and so would using UUVs to sink an Iranian or North Korean submarine that gets too close to the USA. Using a drone to kill a rogue cop holed up in the mountains is not.
Rand Paul asked a simple a question about whether the US federal govt can use drone strikes against non-combatant US citizens on US soils. The first written answer from the Administration was a somewhat ambigous. After the filibuster the administration gave a straight up ‘NO’ as a second answer.
Why didnt they just say that the first time? The author of the article above suggest that this is the obvious answer but apparently it wasnt quite so obvious to the Administration first time around and they handed Rand Paul a golden opportunity to grandstand about an issue he actually does care about.
This was a political blunder by the Administration and Rand Paul’s Mr Smith momment brought attention to the issue and it will move the needle on public opinion on drones – domestic and foreign use.
"Exit polls showed that voters trusted Barack Obama more than Mitt Romney to handle an international crisis (57 percent trusted Obama, " Proof of the low info voter. They trust a man who has destabilized the ME by working to remove dictators who kept the extremists at bay and now we have the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother of all terrorist groups in charge of Egypt etc. The American public is sickeningly ignorant and naive
Actually the drone argument places a traditionally leftist position in the right wing. Where are the real liberals on this issue?
I have often agreed with Max Boot in the past, but he is completely off here. It is odd and disturbing that supposed conservatives such as Boot and McCain seemed to have lost the ability to contemplate long term future consequences of present trends. Paul's critics are only applying present scenarios, and ignoring potential future abuses. Right now I’m sure it’s true that this administration, and the next several, would not use drone strikes against unarmed Americans on American soil. But we've already seen this done to Americans abroad, plus the disturbing language of the NDAA, plus this administration's apparent intentions to broaden the definition of domestic terrorist groups, and a general marginalization and dehumanization of dissent as racist and extremist (the next word would be… terrorist). Now is the time to make sure things do not continue in this direction. Senator Paul was right to demand clarification about something that could feasibly not be so "obvious" a decade or two from now.
Wrong. Rand Paul is " changing the dynamic" as the inside-the-beltline crowd likes to say. What wins here is the sight of a Congressman talking for 13 hours about a matter of Constitutional principle, against a president who is grabbing more executive power than ever but who campaigned on its opposite. That matters way more to people than your hair-splitting over who and when someone is an enemy, as a way to justify zero restraint of military power. n nName one president who has not expanded executive power. There is a reason that the military is run by civilians and why Congress restricts the power of the commander in chief. Rand Paul is speaking against the continual practice by our federal government of creeping diminishment of personal freedom through declaring pragmatic "needs" and "imperatives" of the executive branch. This president has already killed American citizens abroad without due process. It is not at all far-fetched to foresee the next step when the previous administration declared that in the war on terror, even the homeland is a battlefield. I stand with Rand on this one. n
Neoconism is losing whatever friends it ever had: Iraq, Afghanistan, the GWOT, the Arab Spring, Iran, drones. Not popular anymore. And American boys are still being killed in Afghanistan in pursuit of a vague unarticulated strategic objective. Popular enthusiasm for imperialist adventurism is waning.
It is humorous to see people on the far right fight against American security.The five replies before me shows how far the loony fringe right has gone to contort itself to oppose what ever President Obama, (the man who gove the go ahead to the elimination of Osama Bin-Ladin), supports. When Bush was president I had no fear that he would use drones on me. The nuts above me do not believe they are at risk either. They just want to oppose whatever the President supports. r nr nThanks for the examples about Lincoln and Eisenhower in your article. I intend to use them while crediting you in future debates.
Did Max Boot bother to watch any of the filibuster? Paul's point was simple; why wouldn't the administration (Holder/Brennan) give a STRAIGHT answer to a straightforward question? We've spent decades subjected to evasive answers crafted by lawyer/politicians ("It would be inappropriate… we're not planning on doing it" etc). Of course you can't kill US citizens on US soil without due process. (Paul made clear that we can always use lethal force to repel an actual attack regardless of due process, obviously). Why was getting the administration to concede this point so difficult? Paul asked this question half a dozen times per hour throughout the 13 hour filibuster, yet all Boot can do is draw attention to a single throwaway quip about Jane Fonda. And if Paul was so terribly off base, why wouldn't his critics (McCain, Graham) some to the Senate chamber and debate him during the filibuster, rather than taking shots the next day. Bravo Rand Paul!
Max Boot should have listend to what Rand Paul said. He was obviously concerned with drone use against Americans on American soil without any checks and balances. I support Rand Paul I wouldn't trust Obama to exercize legitimate powers under any circumstances.
Notice the lines of the polling that Americans trust Obama more than Romney in foreign policy. What ? nWhat kind of idiots they poll ? Well, the low info voters I guess. Benghazi ? Mursi in Egypt ? Civil war in Syria ? Iran progressing toward nuclear weaponry ? North Korea saber rattling ? China hacking to our computer system ? Al Qaeda in Mali, possible foothold in Libya, Sudan ? America your goose is cook.
Neoconism is losing whatever friends it ever had.
Wrong. Rand Paul is " changing the dynamic" as the inside-the-beltline crowd likes to say. What wins here is the sight of a Congressman talking for 13 hours about a matter of Constitutional principle, against a president who is grabbing more executive power than ever but who campaigned on its opposite. That matters way more to people than your hair-splitting over who and when someone is an enemy, as a way to justify zero restraint of military power.
The author is ignorant of Posse Comitatus. He is wrong. n nHe states: the administration …. has the right in extreme circumstances to use military force on American soil. n nThe military CANNOT take up arms on US soil without the consent of the State Governor. That is why drones are a CIA effort when talking about domestic terrorism. It skirts the law in favor of the Executive. That is bad for everyone.
“But in the process he came across as a bit of a nut. No one imagines that this administration or any other is about to start launching Hellfire missiles in New York or Washington.”r nr nPerhaps when Max boot is done fellating Obama, he can explain why the DHS has bought ONE BILLION rounds of ammunition and 2700 armored vehicles. (check the WSJ).
The neo-cons are ascared, they should be.r nr nYour time is over, you failed in an epic way.r nr nFinally there will be a choice other than dems and dem light.r nr nTEA PARTY.
The neocons, a thoroughly disgraced faction of US politics, are trying to resurrect themselves by exploiting the weakness and division of the Republican Party. n nThe problem is, Mr. Boot, your political cult of neoconservatism has essentially zero support beyond the ivory towers of your think tank buddies. Even the hapless libertarians have some grassroots support.