Paul: Pro-drone Republicans on 'wrong side of history'
Sen. Rand Paul got a little and gave a little in his war on the
president’s drone program Thursday, voting to let the nomination of the
president’s new CIA chief move forward only after receiving an assurance
from the White House that drone strikes couldn’t be used against
noncombatant Americans on U.S. soil.
But don’t expect the conservative Kentucky Republican to cede much more ground on the policy, especially not after the hero’s welcome he’s received in Republican circles as disparate as the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Tea Party Patriots.
Continue Reading
“They’re of the belief that the war is everywhere. They agree with some of the things the president has been saying, that there are no geographic limitations. The laws of war are basically that you don’t get due process, and I can understand that in a battlefield,” Paul said in the interview, taped shortly after the Brennan confirmation vote. “I’m not for reading Miranda rights to people who are shooting at us, but they say America is a battlefield and that’s a huge mistake.”
Thanks to Paul’s filibuster, the drone program became an unlikely flash point for elected Republicans over the past couple of days, pitting more libertarian lawmakers against establishment types who believe strongly in giving the president wide latitude in matters of national security. But Paul’s stand galvanized the grass roots, combining libertarian forces with Republicans who like any attack on President Barack Obama. Paul found himself awash in moral support — from fellow senators to Twitter followers who stamped their messages with the hashtag #standwithrand.
Not everyone was thrilled.
Just steps off the floor on Thursday morning, Graham took a swipe at Paul and a group of senators who aided his filibuster. Graham said they were “creating a straw man” in worrying aloud that the president might target an innocent American at home.
(PHOTOS: Filibuster highlights)
“I just think that if the party believes that the drone program is illegal and that this president or any other president is going to use it to kill somebody in a cafe who has done nothing, then I think the party’s lost its way,” Graham said. “I just think it’s politics.”
Paul, who said he is considering a 2016 bid for the White House, criticized McCain and Graham for favoring too much power for the presidency.
Straw man or not, the White House acceded Thursday to Paul’s request for an answer to the question of whether the president has “the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.”
In a three-line letter, Attorney General Eric Holder replied, “The answer to that question is ‘no.’”
But don’t expect the conservative Kentucky Republican to cede much more ground on the policy, especially not after the hero’s welcome he’s received in Republican circles as disparate as the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Tea Party Patriots.
Continue Reading
In an interview with POLITICO on Thursday afternoon,
Paul said that he’s not willing to give up the fight just because he
voted to cut off debate on John Brennan’s nomination after filibustering
for 12 hours, 52 minutes on Wednesday. And he had a message for his
critics — notably Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham
(R-S.C.) — saying they are “on the wrong side of history” on drone
policy.
(Also on POLITICO: Rand Paul's moment)“They’re of the belief that the war is everywhere. They agree with some of the things the president has been saying, that there are no geographic limitations. The laws of war are basically that you don’t get due process, and I can understand that in a battlefield,” Paul said in the interview, taped shortly after the Brennan confirmation vote. “I’m not for reading Miranda rights to people who are shooting at us, but they say America is a battlefield and that’s a huge mistake.”
Thanks to Paul’s filibuster, the drone program became an unlikely flash point for elected Republicans over the past couple of days, pitting more libertarian lawmakers against establishment types who believe strongly in giving the president wide latitude in matters of national security. But Paul’s stand galvanized the grass roots, combining libertarian forces with Republicans who like any attack on President Barack Obama. Paul found himself awash in moral support — from fellow senators to Twitter followers who stamped their messages with the hashtag #standwithrand.
Not everyone was thrilled.
Just steps off the floor on Thursday morning, Graham took a swipe at Paul and a group of senators who aided his filibuster. Graham said they were “creating a straw man” in worrying aloud that the president might target an innocent American at home.
(PHOTOS: Filibuster highlights)
“I just think that if the party believes that the drone program is illegal and that this president or any other president is going to use it to kill somebody in a cafe who has done nothing, then I think the party’s lost its way,” Graham said. “I just think it’s politics.”
Paul, who said he is considering a 2016 bid for the White House, criticized McCain and Graham for favoring too much power for the presidency.
Straw man or not, the White House acceded Thursday to Paul’s request for an answer to the question of whether the president has “the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.”
In a three-line letter, Attorney General Eric Holder replied, “The answer to that question is ‘no.’”
No comments:
Post a Comment