Posted in: Opinion

Rand Paul Filibuster On Drone Strikes A Waste Of Time As Sequester Ignored?

Rand Paul Filibuster On Drone Strikes A Waste Of Time As Sequester Ignored?

The Rand Paul filibuster is all about drone strike in the USA that can target American citizens. Rand Paul will exercise the rare “talking filibuster” that has not been seen in years to raise public awareness on this issue. But is Rand Paul’s filibuster a waste of time when other national issues confront the Senate?

As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Senator Rand Paul wants the Obama administration to come clean as to whether it believes it has the authority to order such domestic drone strikes to kill US citizens. President Obama has said he has no “intention” of deploying drones in America, but now it has become apparent that the President, via Attorney General Eric Holder, believes he has the legal authority to do so if necessary.

According to the Washington Post, Rand Paul says the verbal filibuster is not really about the CIA confirmation of John Brennan, but about drones strikes in the United States:

“I will speak until I can no longer speak. 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.”

Rand Paul previously has explained why he feels this issue needs to be answered by President Obama:

“When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, ‘No.’ The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that.”

Eric Holder answered this question fairly clearly, saying, “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.” Eric Holder cited the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center as examples.

Many people on the Twitter are chiming in about the Rand Paul filibuster using the hash tag #filibuster. Essentially, while Rand Paul’s main concern has been answered, the filibuster also gives Rand Paul a platform from which to speak about the issue of the President of the United States supposedly having the legal authority to order drone strikes to kill US citizens on American soil.

Even the hack grouper Anonymous is favoring Rand Paul in this instance:

But the problem is that the Rand Paul filibuster is essentially about a question that has already been answered. Yes, the Obama administration feels it can kill a US citizen with a drone strike. That answer was wide out in the open before Rand Paul began his filibuster. What this means is that while Rand Paul is raising awareness about this issue, he is also causing the Senate to come to a halt when national issues like the sequester spending cuts and the crazy budget issues have not been dealt with properly.

I’m not saying that protecting due process in the United States is less important than a temporary financial crisis. Instead of using John Brennan as a soapbox, and lowering himself to Obama’s level by using political theater, Rand Paul could have allowed the Senate to move ahead and used other methods to get his message out.

Do you think the Rand Paul filibuster on drone strikes is a waste of time?

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

3 Responses to “Rand Paul Filibuster On Drone Strikes A Waste Of Time As Sequester Ignored?”

  1. Gordon Ainsleigh

    Senator Rand Paul's filibuster was absolutely not a waste of time. The sequester is a mild financial issue that will soon blow over, but the destruction of the Bill of Rights is something that could probably never be recovered. One Supreme Court decision that a drone strike on an American citizen in Montana or Florida or Texas is allowable under the constitution, and the Bill of Rights becomes just another piece of political propaganda. Rand Paul's filibuster was a breath of fresh air to those many who are terribly concerned that our Constitutional-scholar President is using his substantial Constitutional talents to subvert and enfeeble the very document that has made our nation the freest, strongest and most prosperous nation on earth. Throughout the rest of the world, powerful nations and forces are wanting European-origin culture to fall, and working to that end. If we give up our liberty and freedoms to our President, in the name of protecting and making us secure, we give up the reason for the struggle. Our founding fathers knew that the President, being commander in chief of the armed forces, was the biggest danger to the survival of a free state and its people. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as a necessary protection against government tyranny that so often has arisen in history, and is all around us today in this world.