Senator Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster show on the floor of the Senate produced a sea change in Washington, but it's not the victory he thinks it is.
Paul (and others) set out to seek more public knowledge of the drone program. The focus then shifted to a search to hear that no drones would ever be used on Americans on American soil.
First Sen. Paul got a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder that drones would not be used on Americans on American soil unless the most extraordinary circumstances arise. Holder cited two examples that could meet that criteria - Pearl Harbor and the attack of Sept. 11, 2001.
This was not good enough for Sen. Paul. To his questioning, he wanted to hear an absolute answer of no. He spent almost 13 hours filibustering on the floor of the Senate in an attempt to get such an answer.
In the end, he got a very brief letter from Holder, who clarified that the President does not have the authority to use weaponized drones to kill an American who is "not engaged in combat on American soil".
Sen. Paul declared that simple statement a "victory" of his filibuster, even though it offered no new elucidations. Paul erroneously summarized Holder's statement as "…the President is not going to kill unarmed Americans on American soil."
That simple substitution of Holder's word choice of "not engaged in combat" with Paul's choice of "unarmed" allows Sen. Paul to conveniently overlook the fact that one does not necessarily have to be "armed" to be in "engaged in combat". Then again, it may be a simple language oversight on Sen. Paul's behalf. Note his words from a FoxNews interview on 3/6/13 -
"The thing about the drone strike program is - we're not talking about someone's actively attacking America. We're not talking about planes flying into the World Trade Center. What we're talking about is you're eating dinner in your house. You're eating at a cafe, or you're walking down the road. That's when these drone strikes can occur. It's not about people involved in combat. It's about people who they think might be." - http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/03/rand-paul-drone-strike-during-dinner-.html
Sen. Paul's expectation that an enemy combatant must be in the act of murder in order to warrant the enemy combatant label brings on just as many questions to be asked of Sen. Paul as he is asking of the administration over the drone program. As Holder alluded to, in the event a hijacked plane is heading towards the White House, does this warrant the drone use? Even if the plane is known to hold 100 US citizens? Just what does it take to warrant the "enemy combatant" label? Are there circumstances where the resulting innocent American deaths on American soil would be a tragic, yet "better" choice than allowing an enemy combatant to complete an act of terror?
Neither Bush nor Obama have used the presence of "arms" on an individual to determine if someone is an enemy combatant of the United States. (If Sen. Paul believes the simple presence of "arms" on a person warrants the combatant label, then there are about to be some wild twists in the gun control debate.)
As Holder explained in the first place, (and still left open in the letter that then satisfied Sen. Paul), even with a clear policy of not using weaponized drones on American soil, we cannot define every possible worst case scenario. Even though the use of drone missile strikes on US soil is ruled out, we cannot rule out their use on (or above) American soil in the event of such extraordinary extreme cases.
The technical difference between what Holder actually said, and how Sen. Paul paraphrased those words still allows use of drone attack on an American on American soil in an extreme circumstance. Highly unlikely of course. Maybe even more unlikely than the electoral vote and the popular vote producing different outcomes, but still, the technical difference does not exclude the possibility.
Though Holder's brief letter to Sen. Paul did not give him the absolute answer he sought, it did however give Sen. Paul the wherewithal to move on.
Despite the technical differences in what they both actually said, Holder's brief letter allowed Sen. Paul the opportunity to infer that his "demands" were met. Using that letter to suggest such a "victory" is exactly what Rand Paul did.
If you enjoy this blog, please consider donating towards it support.
Just click on the donate button to the right.
Even the smallest contributions are received with the greatest appreciation.
I'm not so sure Sen. Paul really wanted to continue his mission to bring "public humiliation" (his words) to the White House any further. Despite the political bravado, even Sen. Paul could see he reached the point of diminishing returns in his crusade.
Just like Rush Limbaugh and other talking heads who must fill hours of time ruminating aloud on far-right talking points, the valid essences are quickly covered. The bulk of the talking time is used on the ridiculous. Sen. Rand Paul's near-13 hour filibuster was no different.
There are valid points to address here for sure. Just like there were when Bush ran the drone program. Issues of oversight and clarifying just how far such Presidential authority goes in using the technology are very valid debates. Drifting so far from those points into the realm of absurd right-wing fear-mongering is another. Suggesting that a President would have the authority to kill Jane Fonda with a drone strike, or land a missile from a drone on Kent State is ridiculous. Droning on with tired Hitler comparisons is pathetic. Arguing that the President thinks he can kill US citizens with drone strikes as they sit at a cafe, or walk down the street is nothing more than preposterous fabrication. Yet these all made up part of Sen. Paul's near-13 hour filibuster show.
Such inane anti-government arguments are nothing new. The Hellfire-missile-coming-to-your-door style of paranoia is applied in the most cockamamie conspiracy theories. Take the census for example. Just a few years ago, Alex Jones was selling the Constitutionally-bound once-a-decade undertaking as an excuse to aim Hellfire missiles at your front door. Note the following text from Alex Jones' infowars.com website in March 2010.
“Given the history of the US Federal government, at Waco with the Branch Davidians, at Ruby Ridge among others, you will excuse me that I am not buying the Census story....The reason is simple…They, whoever you think “they” are, intend to kill you for your political, religious and cultural views. And they intend to do it in the most intense “shock and awe” manner they can....So, when a HELLFIRE missile shows up at your front door, don’t say I didn’t warn you.”
But that's Alex Jones - the king of anti-government conspiracy theories. He can rail for hours about such ridiculous offerings.
Glenn Beck also chimed in on the census saying - "Today they're asking the race question to try to increase slavery."
This type of nonsense, when given voice on the floors of Congress, does not match the quantity or length that Conservative shock-jocks devote to it on a daily basis. Its Congressional appearances are also quickly met with voices of reason. Soundbites are extracted and played on various media to mock not only the Congressional member who uttered it, but their affiliated Party.
Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster offered numerous such soundbites. So many in fact, that it was not just Liberals or Democrats taking note. Ranking Republicans noted the damage being done. They actually had to engage in damage control and take to the floor to oppose the ridiculous rhetoric.
Lindsey Graham spoke out about the hypocrisy of fellow Republicans now getting worked up against the drone program. He pointed out that Republicans had no problem with Bush having the drone program, and that Democrats were not outspoken against Bush’s drone program.
 |
Amazingly, in response to Rand Paul's filibuster,
LINDSEY GRAHAM
actually made this point on the floor of the Senate.
Thanks to Politically Preposterous for use of this meme. |
Graham's objections to fellow Republicans here stems from two separate concerns.
First, he can read the writing on the wall about how dangerous the optics are in Republicans' pushing the over-the-top rhetoric. It was just last year that Graham told the Washington Post "The demographics race we're losing badly. We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
Secondly, attacking the drone program is a snub to the neo-con ideology of military intervention.
President Obama has said from the start of his first Presidential campaign that he would use the military in more efficient manner. Large troop presence would not occur when Special Forces can effect an equal or better outcome. He has held true to his word. He has increased our Special Forces, and he has deployed them many times with great success. The Somalian pirates and the bin laden raid are two of the most prominent examples. These crucial affairs were not dealt with by going to war with Pakistan or Somalia. They were handled by elite forces.
President Obama truly reserves war for the last resort. Diplomacy, Special Forces, air power, and yes, drones make up his primary arsenal in handling sticky foreign affairs.
Some neo-con personalities have a problem with this, and have a hard time learning the lessons of how costly and deadly the entanglements are that arise from jumping too quickly to a "boots on the ground" strategy. Voices whined about "leading from behind" over President Obama's handling of Libya. FoxNews personalities decried it "unnatural".
Rand Paul is not a neo-con. He is a pure Libertarian. There is an ideological divide between the two. An absolute Libertarian sees spending on wars a poor choice and a waste of money. Bring everyone home, then secure the borders. Spend what you need to make the borders tight, then stop spending money on war and foreign affairs.
To highlight the gap in ideology between these two factions of the Republican Party, note this exchange between Paul Krugman and Rand Paul.
On ABC's This Week in Sept of 2012, Krugman pointed out how Romney's ad campaigns were claiming government spending can't create jobs, while simultaneously claiming Obama was trying to cut defense spending. The Romney ads argued that defense spending should not be cut because… that would cost jobs. Rand Paul replied "That's an inconsistency and it's wrong. They are accepting Keynes with regards to military spending, but not with regards to…"
The Libertarian constitution of Rand Paul would view the drone program overseas a waste of money on unnecessary military imperialism. His ideology would also then see no need for such a program domestically.
The neo-con ideology would have a different perspective. To the neo-con constitution, the drone program would be seen as vital military defense. Especially given President Obama's opposition to heavy troop deployments.
Note Lindsey Graham's words -
“So what is it all of a sudden that this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up… To my party, I’m a bit disappointed that you no longer apparently think we’re at war.”
Then there is John McCain, who stood on the floor and called Sen. Paul's questions and assertions "ridiculous".
No stranger to trying to balance support of the right-wing fringe without creating a monster, McCain recognized the damage being done by an unchecked near-13 hour tirade chock full of anti-government paranoia soundbites. “We’ve done a, I think, a disservice to a lot of Americans, by making them believe that somehow they’re in danger from their government. They’re not.” said McCain.
No matter the negatives involved, we all owe Sen. Rand Paul a thank you for literally taking a stand and offering a REAL filibuster.
Whether focusing on a crucial oversight, a ridiculous delusion, or even a mix of the two, a REAL filibuster sparks a national dialogue that goes way beyond the sensationalized headlines. In the last few years, we have failed to see that happen.
Instead, we experienced a record number of silent filibusters. They have the same effect of stopping movement in Congress, but they lack any debate. They not only lack debate, they usually lack any transparency. A single member of Congress can literally call in a silent filibuster from home without offering any reason, and due to the anonymity, they also receive no repercussion. That is the silent filibuster.
It is a blatant abuse and over-extension of legislative privilege. It abuses the intended protection from potential tyranny of the majority and creates from it, at the very least, blatant guerilla obstruction from the minority. Some would call that act tyranny itself. Tyranny by the minority.
 |
| Sen. Rand Paul's ACTUAL filibuster was the first in a long time. |
Yet this formula has been used ad nauseam in the last few years.
It is the silent part of that recent construction known as the silent filibuster that causes so much damage.
It minimizes real debate. Reporting is minimal, if existent at all. The result is simplistic and sensationalized misinformation that only seeds irrational rumors. Without requiring extensive nonstop speaking on the floors of Congress to effect a filibuster, the full "debate" fails to spill out beyond the beltway.
In fact, the silent filibuster keeps the full "debate" from even happening within Congress itself. Had we not seen the spectacle of Rand Paul going on for almost 13 hours, but instead experienced yet another silent filibuster, it is virtually a given that we would not have heard Lindsey Graham and John McCain be forced to speak up in opposition. More likely, a silent filibuster would have kept the new status quo of simply sidestepping the actual debate while giving a metaphorical wink to the extreme rhetoric.
If you enjoy this blog, please consider donating towards it support.
Just scroll back to the top, and click on the donate button to the right.
Even the smallest contributions are received with the greatest appreciation.
So Rand Paul, I thank you.
Your actual filibuster forced actual debate. That is a very good thing. It brought focus to what oversight, or at the least, what knowledge, the American people should have regarding the use of deadly force in our name. It brought debate on the limits of executive power. All things that we continually must keep in check. By extension, your filibuster brought contemplation of our national defense outside (and inside) our borders. I don't think we can simply seal our borders and forget the rest of the world. I also know we can't go the other extreme living in eternal war all around the globe.
No matter the President at the time, there will always be enemy combatants that require action to protect our national security. Many of us may like to overlook that fact and avoid the reality altogether until forced to consider it amidst a national dialogue.
Your filibuster brought such a national dialogue, and for those willing to engage, they must consider the costs and risks of various foreign policies and actions. We must compare the outcomes and entanglements of flat-out war to those of doing nothing. We must compare those extremes to the current use of Special Forces, intelligence and drone strikes. No policy will ever be perfect, and frankly doing nothing is not an option. I personally see the current policies as far more efficient and effective than the all-out war approach of our last President. I imagine I am hardly the only one. Especially as anyone truly focusing on your filibuster is then forced to weigh all these concerns.
But many already have considered these issues. Many actually voted for Barack Obama because he offered this policy approach from the beginning of his first campaign. He was actually mocked for it, but so far the approach has successfully dealt with numerous global challenges without resorting to more American war entanglements.
For millions then, that leaves your ridiculous rhetoric of Hitler and Jane Fonda and Kent State and cafe killings and Hellfire-missiles-aimed-at-your-door as the biggest takeaway from your filibuster.
Senator Rand Paul, you claimed a "victory" of getting the answer you sought, despite Eric Holder's letter to you technically offering nothing more than did his original statements. Feel complacent in your assessment that your near-13 hour show brought "public humiliation" to our current administration. No matter how you self-evaluate your performance, the fact is that your filibuster, in bringing forth actual debate, also forced fellow Republicans to stand up against your tirade and take a stance against the extreme ridiculous fear-mongering rhetoric that has been leading the Republican Party for years.
The most consequential "victory" from your filibuster is not the brief letter from Eric Holder, it is the result of making it now acceptable for Republicans to publicly take a stance against the extremes of tea party rhetoric.
Throw in the ideological divide between the jingoism of Neo-Conservatives and the shrink-government-at-all-costs ideology of Libertarianism, and the acceptability of Republicans to speak openly in condemnation of such extreme rhetoric intensifies into an imperative.
THAT is the ultimate "victory" of Senator Rand Paul's filibuster.
Posts
