Paul's 'coast-to-coast' alarm
Republican Rand Paul took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to filibuster John Brennan's nomination to become head of the CIA.
“I will speak as long as it takes,” the junior senator from Kentucky said, “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.”
I imagine many Americans following news of the filibuster, which lasted nearly 13 hours, were finding out for the first time that lawmakers such as Paul, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and a handful of others are gravely concerned about a possible threat from the executive branch against these unalienable rights. This makes the filibuster a success. As Paul said, sounding the alarm from “coast to coast” was exactly his aim.
Was this unusual event the filibuster heard 'round the world? At least the country has been alerted to the fact that the Obama administration — in the persons of the president, the attorney general and the CIA director-designate — has been alarmingly vague and/or downright unresponsive to repeated, specific questions from Paul and Cruz. The two senators want to know whether the administration believes the Constitution permits the president to order drone strikes against noncombatant American citizens on American soil, thus depriving them of their Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process and, of course, their lives.
And so it should concern the rest of us — and not just the Arab-American citizen Rand Paul invoked in hour one, who, for communicating via email with a terrorist-relative in the Middle East, Paul believes, could potentially become a drone target of the Obama administration.
Meanwhile, there is something else to consider. So long as the Obama administration continues to demonize its political opponents as potential domestic terrorists, as Paul says, the outlandishness of a domestic drone strike is further worn down, conditioned into weary complacency or even mob consensus. We've seen such transformations many times before in modern — and not always totalitarian — societies.
All the more reason for the president to alleviate such fears with his affirmation that killing noncombatant Americans in America is unconstitutional. But I don't think he's going to do it.
One of the stranger results of the popular Paul filibuster was the instant coalescence of an ad hoc “Calm down, Rand” (read: shut up) effort.
Maybe they think deep inside that if drone wars were deemed unconstitutional in any way — or, worse, ineffective — the hollow offensives the U.S. continues to support would eventually collapse, giving rise to panicky paralysis. In such an event, the absurdity of picking off terrorist leaders worldwide as a national strategy to fight “terror” might emerge with distressing clarity, while the Islamic law and money that have almost wholly engulfed Western institutions might become frighteningly apparent.
Maybe that's why it seems as if blind trust in presidential discretion now trumps the bounds of the Constitution. But I hope not.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
- Lowly job likely awaits former Pittsburgh police chief after prison
- Hempfield pair caught in vehicle scam
- Cole outduels Mets rookie, carries Pirates to victory
- Steelers interested in playing internationally again
- Murray, Alpha notify West Virginia coal miners of layoffs
- Pirates notebook: Stewart, Cole develop rapport
- PIAA track and field notebook: Burrell’s Scherer, Valley’s Walters set to race again
- Officer lived for family, hometown, alma mater
- Online donors help Hempfield teen whose wallet was stolen
- Shareholder vote causes ATI to review executive pay packages
- Steelers offensive line targeting injury-free performance as key