Did You Know...

   

Lindsey Graham: Premise of Rand Paul’s filibuster is ridiculous

Share
By Doug Powers  •  March 7, 2013 02:24 PM

**Written by Doug Powers

Yesterday’s filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul was all about a fairly simple question for the president: Is it constitutional to order a drone strike on an American citizen who is not an imminent threat on American soil without due process?

There was no response from the White House where a Nobel Peace Prize adorns a West Wing wall.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham — being a courtly southern gentlemen who doesn’t believe in troubling the man who just bought him dinner — found Paul’s entire premise outlandish:

“This idea that we’re going to use a drone to attack an American citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous.”

Well, in that case it should be an easy question to answer, shouldn’t it?

Graham, not unlike Eric Holder yesterday, insisted on focusing on likelihood rather than the constitutionality of the hypothetical scenario.

Graham also referred to Paul’s filibuster as “paranoia between libertarians and the hard left that is unjustified.” Aren’t these the same people who always want to bring both sides together? In any case, Graham’s off base. If Paul had come out and warned everybody against going into cafes because there’s a good chance they’d end up as “domestic drone war on terror collateral damage” with no evidence anything like that was imminent, then Graham might have had a point, but that’s not what happened. Paul merely posed a question — one that seems to have struck a nerve among the “just trust us, we know what’s best” bunch in DC.

The Hermanator wasn’t thrilled with Sen. Graham:

John McCain agreed with Graham: “I don’t think what happened yesterday was helpful to the American people.” McCain didn’t like it one bit.

Drudge does his stuff:

null

The White House and Holder did finally respond:

Attorney General Eric Holder wrote Sen. Rand Paul,R-Ky., to confirm that President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American on U.S. soil in a non-combat situation, Obama’s spokesman announced today.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

blog comments powered by Disqus
~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's Email List:

White House finally delivers apologetic statement after Oklahoma beheading

October 5, 2014 09:36 PM by Doug Powers

homelandsecurity

Reassurance

State Dept’s Marie Harf: Hey, the spread of ISIS surprised even ISIS

September 29, 2014 10:03 PM by Doug Powers

harf

If you think about it, we’re lucky to still be alive

Obama on 60 Minutes: US responding militarily with few global partners part of ‘how we roll’

September 29, 2014 07:56 AM by Doug Powers

obamaweights

Who ya gonna call?

Obama fires up Air Force One, Marine One, huge motorcade to deliver climate change warning at UN

September 23, 2014 01:33 PM by Doug Powers

obamacoffee

Plus: Coffee salute

‘Obama to personally sign off on any Syrian airstrikes’ — why does that sound so familiar?

September 19, 2014 09:37 PM by Doug Powers

obamamap

Lyndon Baines Obama?


Categories: Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, War

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook