The Rand Paul (PR) filibuster was music to some
people’s ears, but for many reasons not everyone had that reaction. To some, like The
New American the nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate
floor was a politically organizing milestone and conservative rallying point:
“a
stroke of political genius that still has not yet been fully appreciated….Those
who compose the base of the GOP lost much of their morale during George W.
Bush’s second term. When the Democrats took back the Congress in 2006 and
Barack Obama won the presidency two years later, it all but vanished. Spirits
began to stir once more during the midterm elections of 2010, it is true, but
since then, they’ve again been reduced to dust and ashes. Anyone who doubts
this need only consider that some four million self-identified Republicans
refused to vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan back in November.”
Certainly it had political implications. Mitch
McConnell, for example, is fundraising off of the Rand Paul filibuster. The National Republican Senatorial Committee launched a #StandWithRand fundraiser for
senators who “remained committed to upholding the values and the mandates of
the Constitution.” McConnell
himself has asked supporters to sign a petition declaring:
“I stand WITH
Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell. They are shining examples of Republican
leadership.”
With comments like this one knows that more than drone policy was on the agenda. And Paul, PR as one might call him, doesn’t always make sense as he speaks. At times he can bend and distort quotes from non-libertarians. One famous example is his earlier claim that Elena Kagan had claimed that the government could require citizens to eat broccoli. Shades of Supreme Courts activists! The actual record shows clearly that she didn't say this.
So PR’s demagogue potential is there even if he may be on
the side of the angels in the drone-war debate.
PR himself
followed up his standing words (“I rise today to begin to
filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no
longer speak”) with slightly different words in an OpEd in the Post “My filibuster was
just the beginning.” Here we may be seeing part that slippery, muddled slope as
sound argument gets overtaken by talking points. Part of the article described
his ordeal, part listed House conservatives who appearing in the
back of the chamber to show their support as part of what Paul perhaps hopes in
a more general movement than issues raised by drone attacks. On that issue many
of us might agree with him broadly that we need more transparency into and more
meaningful oversight of drone strikes. But what rallied Paul and some conservatives
was the issue that these might be against U.S. citizens and even within United
States borders. In his filibuster Paul noted: “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.”
In the OpEd Paul said. “I
hope my efforts help spur a national debate about the limits of executive power
and the scope of every American’s natural right to be free.”
I was struck as were some others with his focus on American
citizen rights. What about non-citizen rights as humans? Where’s the humanity? Is libertarian philosophy American-centric?
WP Opinions had a series of letter under the title Use of drones requires
more than a filibuster. Some of them such as the David A.
Drachsler, ACLU board member, who noted more general rights provided for by the
Constitution.
‘The Fifth and 14th amendments prohibit the federal and
state governments from depriving “any person” of “life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.”’
OK, so
we should protect foreign
tourists, resident aliens, green-card-holding workers or undocumented
persons.
Randy Scope, of Silver Spring, cited the “Living Under Drones” report by scholars
at Stanford University and New York University. This adds even a larger scope of concern about the drone-enabled killing and
wounding of children in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Where’ the compassion?
Bruce P. Heppen, of Potomac, had perhaps the
strongest response to Paul’s OpEd:
“I cannot decide which is sadder, that Sen. Rand Paul
thinks he has advanced the debate on the use of drones or that The Post chose
to run his vapid commentary. “
Images
Stand
with Rand: http://www.bokbluster.com/
Rand
Stand: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/03/06/Rand-Paul-Inspires-HuffPo-to-Blister-Obama-Over-Drone-Policy
No comments:
Post a Comment