Last Wednesday, we witnessed a rare moment.
The fact that it was a rare moment is, in and of itself, disgusting for it SHOULD be the most common of moments as to go without notice.
The moment was as uncommon as common sense.
For just short of 13 hours a Senator from Kentucky stood on the floor and asked a simple question.
13 hours.
He wanted to know whether or not the president…ANY president, had the authority to kill an American citizen, on American soil, that was an unarmed noncombatant who was not, at the time of his or her droning, actively engaged in an ongoing act of terror or violence.
Last Wednesday was not the first time the senator had asked the question. In fact, he had asked and asked the question both verbally and in writing.
In a nutshell, the answers he received were, “We have no intention of doing that” and, “We have never done that before.”
To those who provided those responses, thank you for answering questions not asked.
The senator from Kentucky did not ask whether or not this had been done before.
The senator from Kentucky did not ask if there was any intent to do it in the future.
The senator from Kentucky simply wanted to know if the president believes he has the AUTHORITY to do it.
There are only two options when it comes to the answer.
No…or…Yes.
If the answer is “no” its case closed and thanks for your time.
If the answer is “yes” it opens the proverbial door to other questions and one suspects the most pertinent of those would be, “From where does the authority to kill an American citizen, on American soil, sans due process and other protections as are spelled out in the 5th Amendment, who is not engaged in an active or imminent threat come?
Who gets to make such a decision?
What criteria would be employed in such a decision?
There are numerous questions which would need to be asked were the answer to the senator’s initial question “yes.”
The most obvious example to be used would be the droning of al Awlaki in Yemen.
There, you had a known terrorist, an American citizen, in a foreign country, driving down a road one minute and turned into a smoldering puddle of goo the next.
Why would it be acceptable to drone al Awlaki THERE but NOT here?
Simple.
We had no law enforcement or military presence in Yemen which could have attempted a capture.
That, obviously, would not be the case HERE.
Now…Back to the senator from Kentucky and his 13 hour question.
The question, in reality, was not simply about the drone program rather, it was an umbrella question covering a wide range of expanding government powers.
The droning question deserved a quick and simple answer but, because the senator from Kentucky had been asking it verbally and in writing for nearly 45 days and then, Wednesday, for 13 hours in a televised floor session, the harsh light of exposure was focused on an administration embroiled in secrecy, lack of transparency, obfuscation and eminently unwilling to give up a shred of power whether real or contrived.
Thursday, a day after the 13 hour question, Eric Holder sent yet another letter to the Senator from Kentucky.
“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”
THAT letter could and SHOULD have been sent 45 days ago.
The senator went “Old School” with a filibuster to get a straight forward answer to a simple question also exposed the rift in the Republican party and quite possibly put the GOP on notice that a “New Era” was at hand.
On the floor, the Senator from Kentucky held the attention of a nation on television and social media. His actions drew support from such natural enemies of conservatives as Code Pink and the ACLU and with him were a small handful of other “Young Guns” of the party including the senator from Florida and the new senator from Texas.
NOT on the floor were the “Old Establishment Guard” of the Republican party many of whom went out for dinner with Obama at a swanky, high dollar beltway hotel restaurant.
I do not always agree with the senator from Kentucky and in fact, I tend to disagree with him more often than not but, regardless of what some think was a self-aggrandizing move to a possible run in 2016, there was, I believe, something bigger and far more important took place last Wednesday.
Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky, stood upon the very foundation of the Republic and defended it dramatically by drawing attention to it in a way we have rarely seen in decades.
Rand Paul stood for the Constitution.
Rand Paul stood for the rights of Americans.
Rand Paul stood against the notion that a president is above that Constitution and he stood for the very limitations our founders and framers envisioned.
For 13 hours, on the floor of the senate, Rand Paul outlined the separation of powers, the rights of the people, the limits of government and the importance of the rule of law. Rand Paul, in this case, on this topic and in that 13 hour moment, displayed the ethics, moral character and adherence to the Constitution that ALL elected officials SHOULD display EVERY day, on EVERY topic and with regard to EVERY situation of governance and he spurred others…Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat 
Toomey (R-Penn.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Democrat Sen Ron Wyden from Oregon, in that 13 hour moment, on that issue, to stand WITH him and FOR the Constitution.
That means there were 51 Democrat and 33 Republican senators who did NOT, for a mere 13 hours, stand FOR the Constitution and in MY opinion, NONE of them should EVER be reelected to ANY office.
Strikingly, it took the threat of instilling in one individual, current or future president, the ultimate power of life and death of an American citizen on U.S. soil above any and all Constitutional restrictions to bring 15 senators to stand with the 1 who dared shine the light of the founders vision upon the corruption and disregard of the Constitution by asking a 13 hour long question when for all 99 of them, as well as the 435 in the house…
Their oath of office should damn well be enough to make them do it every hour of every day and how sad it is that the moment was so rare that we feel the need to congratulate them for doing what they are supposed to do and were elected to do.
Sadder still is the fact that the ilk of John McCain and Lindsey Graham uttered such words on Thursday as, “If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids. I don’t think what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people.”
It wasn’t a “rid
iculous” question as Mr. McCain labeled it.
What was ridiculous was that it took 45 days, 12 hours and 39 minutes to get a simple answer TO it.
Regrettably, the sentiments of John McCain, excoriating those who would dare to stand on behalf of the American people and for the Constitution itself in a public forum for a mere 13 hours, are far, FAR too common.
Shame on them and shame on us who elect them.
Craig Andresen
The National Patriot
Weekend Edition 3/9/13
I’ve seen the Cruz-Holder exchange. Yeah, so it took a couple of minutes for Holder to understand that Cruz was asking something as simple and ridiculous as whether the government could bring a drone strike down on an innocent American coffee drinker in an American cafe, and it took another couple of minutes for Cruz to understand that Holder was saying no, the government could not. What’s the big deal? Cruz did not extract some reluctant concession from Holder. What he got, once Holder confirmed exactly what he was asking, was “duh!”
Moreover, as Holder pointed out, that specific question is different than the general one posed by Paul, and his answers to both Paul’s and Cruz’s questions are consistent. Holder put his simple one-word response (“no”) to the specific question in writing to Paul a couple days later.
Cruz’s and Paul’s mock horror at all this is but silly grandstanding.
Doug,
The fact is, Paul never once asked Holder or this absurd administration is they had previously or intended to conducted a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil which makes Holders initial answer an answer to questions never posed.
That Holder finally, before a committee said no and then altered his answer to reflect scenarios like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 showed that he was hedging his answer by putting into play situations which, in fact, were not posed in the question.
The fact that, during 13 hours of question asking in the filibuster, Paul and his staff continued to pose THE question to Holder and the administration means they had NO answer to it.
Further, YOUR attempt to cast doubt upon and label the question itself as a waste of time and silly speaks VOLUMES as to YOUR socialist mindset for if it WERE a silly or pointless question, it should have been answered matter of factly with a NO and THAT should have happened IMMEDIATELY.
It took 1.5 months PLUS a 13 hour filibuster to get a simple answer to a constitutional question out of this administration and THAT is what is really absurd here…NOT the question.
Doug did you hear Ted Cruz asking Holder SPECIFICALLY the question, where it took four tries before Holder answered the SPECIFIC question that Paul was getting at? If you didn’t hear that exchange, you may want to hear that.
I have started a Petiton that would illiminate ALL of the present day administrations craziness….its called PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION….it needs 150 signatures to be shown publically..and a total of 100,000 signatures for The person in OUR Potus seat to HAVE to address. PLEASE MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD…SIGN, SHARE.
http://wh.gov/7jn6
Craig, I’ve been away for awhile due to several deaths in our family, including that on my 18 year old grandson. Please bear with me as I am just a wee bit confused.
1. No budget has been past in 4 years, does anyone think one will be passed in the next year or three?
2. Doesn’t the debt clock run out again and isn’t the NOT KING, NOT DICTATOR going to start more scare tactics than are already in play in order to add more money to the national debt and still not be willing to give a teaspoonful of budget cuts for the increase. Let’s face it, we need those robot squirrel really really badly, not to many several other equally ridiculous expeditures, like studying bear poop in China. When are people going to start seeing through this man who just shut the doors to the people’s house to keep them out???
3. I heard Holder evade the question in the hearing as a “hypothetical”, but he positively refused to give a one word, one syllable answer to anyone until the day after the filibuster. And then he said NO. Do I believe his answer? NO, I do not, because he is in the inner circle and knows the NOT DICTATOR already is on the threshold of making the announcement that he is taking over to protect us from the “stupid, rich, racist, Republicans” in the best interest of all Americans of course. So I do not believe anything Holder says and don’t trust anything he does.
4. Since Texas is the ONLY state that can leave the union, do you happen to know where Alabama can apply for annexation or adoption papers into the state of Texas???? Some of these southern boys I know are as redneck as they come and they are far more better prepared this time than they were in the FIRST Civil War.
5. Lastly, as the 8th great granddaughter of Patrick Henry, I can tell you he is spinning like a top in his grave at what they were willing to fight and die for to create this nation and give it the Constituition and Bill of Rights we have today. To think of all of those people in Washington representing us, and the dwindling numbers of them who have our best interest at heart, how much longer can we keep going with the like of McCain and Lindsey and the other 86 who stood against the stance Paul made????
I am so behind the curve in posting, but I still read when I can and try to keep up and our country is about to implode and be owned by other nations…..and we will be lost forever. It frightens me for my children and grandchildren. Thanks for the insight, Craig, hugs, Valli Herrington Saucer, aka Amber Ann Wright 😉
If you read Paul’s question, he asked a general question about the use of “lethal force” and mentioned a “drone strike” merely as an example. Holder answered that general question and also addressed drone strikes.
When Paul later indicated he was really interested in a more specific question about drone strikes against coffee drinkers and the like, Holder obliged him with a direct response to that question.
It is not the use of drones against OUR (the nation’s) enemies, but the use of them against THEIRS (the government’s) that is of concern. As our leader is frequently reminding us now that he is neither a king, dictator or emperor, me thinks he doth protest too much.
Paul asked whether “the President has the power to use lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
Holder responded first that the U.S. has not conducted drone strikes in the U.S. and has no intention of doing so and, further, the President rejects the use of military force where law enforcement authorities in the country provide the best means of incapacitating a terrorist threat. He next noted that Paul’s question thus is “entirely hypothetical [and] unlikely to occur” and responded: “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 [U.S] for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the [U.S.]”
Duh! The Civil War is a case in point.
Yet Paul grandstands, during which he concedes Holder’s point and suggests that is not the question he had in mind: “Nobody questions if planes are flying towards the Twin Towers whether they can be repulsed by the military. Nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled.”
Holder then responded: “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”
Again, duh! And, so it seems, Paul and Holder agree–on both his general and specific questions.
Yet Paul grandstands–to what end, other than grandstanding for his own political sake, is not clear. In that, given the tenor of some comments, he appears to have been quite successful. Bully show!
Doug,
Actually, since Texas now is the ONLY state which has the ability to leave the union, the Civil War is not at all a “case in point.”
For Holder to say we have never used a drone nor do we intend to is not the answer to the question asked OF him by Rand Paul. Holder also used as examples, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 neither of which were appropriate as holder was comparing apples to Paul’s oranges.
Only AFTER the filibuster did Holder then answer the question as it had been asked for a month and a half and in doing so, Holder tries to suggest that it was a DIFFERENT question which, in fact, it was not.
This administration was caught by their own unwillingness to answer a simple constitutional question and Paul put them in the hotseat with his filibuster.
Craig
Joseph I agree with you on the first part. I would have liked it to be spelled out much more clearly, as I do not trust this administration. Rand Paul didn’t say THIS administration, but this is exactly the kind of out of control government that our Bill of Rights and Amendments were set in place to protect. A government that doesn’t tend to like to recognize the seperation of powers and the limits on those powers. But it really doesn’t MATTER who the president is, or what party, they must still stay within the bounds of the Constitution. You can bet that if this were GW trying to pull one quarter of the crap Obama and Holder are, the left would be screaming holy hell. I remember when Bush did the Patriot Act thing, and I was a regular in a Yahoo chat room where I was one of two conservatives. They were HOWLING about it. Where are they NOW?
I also agree with Craig. Talking “budget” with this gang of nutballs is like trying to nail jello to a wall. They haven’t done a budget in four years! Come on man!
Craig, I am doing a personal vetting of Rand Paul, since I do believe he is going to run in 2016. What are the things that you disagree with him on, and why? So far, I am very disappointed that he voted for Hagel. I did hear his reasoning, but I am not satisfied with his answer. To me, to stick to your principles. If something is wrong, it’s WRONG. I could not in good conscience have voted for Hagel, and it wouldn’t matter to me how anyone else voted. I’d just be curious to hear if there are other things I should be aware of? I hope he doesn’t have the same foreign policy as his dad, and will surpirse us with it later…when it’s possibly too late. I have had way too many surprises and disappointments!
Most of those in political positions have law degrees and for the last 10 years haven’t even had to learn the constitution to graduate or pass the bar. That is only ONE of the problems.
I personally think he let the issue go a little too soon. I applaud the effort, but he did not achieve the needed results. What should have been answered, was WHO determines WHAT is HOSTILE…… And WHO determines WHO OR WHAT is an ENEMY COMBATIVE. Does that mean that if they don’t like what you are saying, they can label you an “Enemy Combative”? And if the President can’t make that decision, WHO exactly can? So….. Taking the risk of sounding too Liberal, I feel the Senator from Kentucky wasted 13 hours of the Senate’s time. Time that should have been used to work on the budget, or this Country’s debt problem. But I do admire his drive, which did open up some discussion on the issue. But in the end….. The Republicans agreed to vote on the nommination, and the President got his man.
Joe,
Seriously…There hasn’t been a budget in 4 years…another 13 hours, compared to THAT, isn’t a setback. LOL!!!
Craig
The greater question or rather the greater fear should be: If the President (the government) can kill American citizens without due process using a drone, then the President (the government) can kill American citizens using any means available.