Lindsey Graham: Premise of Rand Paul’s filibuster is ridiculous
| Tweet |
**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:
Lindsay Graham couldn’t wait to try & crush the GOP momentum. He’s reminding conservatives why he’s such a problem bit.ly/VKE4cl
— Herman Cain (@THEHermanCain) March 7, 2013
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:

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
Rand Paul filibuster watch: 10th 12th hour and beyond; Update: Ends after almost 13 hours
March 6, 2013 09:56 PM by Doug Powers
Whoops: AP retracts story about Rand Paul statement, blames faulty transcript
February 17, 2013 02:58 PM by Doug Powers
Susan Rice on Benghazi: There was no intention to mislead anybody
November 27, 2012 04:32 PM by Doug Powers
Categories: Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, John McCain, Politics, Terrorist attacks
Daily Caller
» David Brooks: ‘We as a country have become over-addicted to scandal’Green Room
» Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangoutGay Patriot
» Jesus, on tax collectorsDaily Caller
» Wyo. student who threatened to rape self on Facebook was convicted of assaultDaily Caller
» Bill Maher: GOP guilty of ‘treason’; Michael Moore: ‘They hate America’Green Room
» New liberal idea: Let’s raise $660 million online in a month to buy the LA Times before the Koch brothers canGay Patriot
» Did the IRS act progressive groups the same kind of intrusive questions they asked of Tea Party groups? (And if not, why not?)Gay Patriot
» Meanwhile, at Obama’s EPA. . .








