Home » Opinion » Editorials
March 07. 2013 9:06PM
Though college basketball, the NBA and baseball spring training games were all on television on Wednesday night, the best viewing was on C-SPAN 2. There, Americans could watch Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., single-handedly spark life back into the Republican Party. It was something to behold.
At 11:47 a.m., Paul rose and began a genuine, old-fashioned, 12-hour filibuster. It was no juvenile publicity stunt. It was no politically calculated display of mock outrage, ala the senior senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell. It was a moment of clarity offered with conviction and savvy. And it might have been a turning point in what the Obama administration refuses to call the War on Terror while still waging it with gusto.
Paul took the Senate floor to block President Obama's nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director. Brennan, a career CIA man who is unquestionably qualified for the job, was not the issue. At question was the administration's position on when, where and how American citizens can be snuffed out on the President's orders.
Paul wanted to know the answer to a simple question: Does the President believe he has the constitutional authority to use drones to kill American citizens on American soil without trial? He and other senators asked the administration this question numerous times. They got no straight answer, which is alarming.
Attorney General Eric Holder treated the question and questioners with contempt, choosing to play silly semantic games rather than give a straight answer. The White House refused to give Sen. Paul a direct answer. So he used the best tool at his disposal to bring the nation's attention to this serious question. It worked beautifully.
In war, the President absolutely has the authority to kill enemy combatants. Paul's question gets to these finer points: How is "enemy combatant" status determined, and what protections are American citizens afforded if their government claims the ongoing authority to secretly make that determination and act upon it anywhere at any time, forever?
Those are immensely important questions, and Rand Paul should be applauded for the way he led his party in pursuit of answers.
Rand's stand: An act of real leadership
At 11:47 a.m., Paul rose and began a genuine, old-fashioned, 12-hour filibuster. It was no juvenile publicity stunt. It was no politically calculated display of mock outrage, ala the senior senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell. It was a moment of clarity offered with conviction and savvy. And it might have been a turning point in what the Obama administration refuses to call the War on Terror while still waging it with gusto.
Paul took the Senate floor to block President Obama's nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director. Brennan, a career CIA man who is unquestionably qualified for the job, was not the issue. At question was the administration's position on when, where and how American citizens can be snuffed out on the President's orders.
Paul wanted to know the answer to a simple question: Does the President believe he has the constitutional authority to use drones to kill American citizens on American soil without trial? He and other senators asked the administration this question numerous times. They got no straight answer, which is alarming.
Attorney General Eric Holder treated the question and questioners with contempt, choosing to play silly semantic games rather than give a straight answer. The White House refused to give Sen. Paul a direct answer. So he used the best tool at his disposal to bring the nation's attention to this serious question. It worked beautifully.
In war, the President absolutely has the authority to kill enemy combatants. Paul's question gets to these finer points: How is "enemy combatant" status determined, and what protections are American citizens afforded if their government claims the ongoing authority to secretly make that determination and act upon it anywhere at any time, forever?
Those are immensely important questions, and Rand Paul should be applauded for the way he led his party in pursuit of answers.
- Just say it: Our fight is with radical Islam - 70
- Ignorance abounds: Obamacare and small businesses - 25
- Mayor development: Growth and a Manchester city office - 1
- Page One Editorial: Control of NH’s future: Today’s House vote will be one for the ages - 17
- Consider Nevada: Gambling always expands - 9
- Missing the point: The IRS scandal and state power - 27
- Helping panhandlers: A method worth trying in Manchester - 7
- For the people: A century of the NH primary - 0
- What innovation? The casino way is the lazy way - 10
The casino vote: The House did its duty
READER COMMENTS: 11- Garry Rayno's State House Dome: Will House, Senate continue the feud? - 0
- Ted Siefer's City Hall: City down to the wire on school budget, superintendent - 0
- Service planned for mother of Newtown school shooter - 0
- ENH Power parent firm accused of false advertising - 0
- Soldier from Pelham remembered for self-sacrifice - 0
- New Hampshire energy suppliers announce new alliance - 0
- Mont Vernon murder mastermind drops appeal, citing 'personal and moral' reasons - 0
- Ian Clark's On Hockey: Are B's destiny's darlings? - 0
- Dave D'Onofrio's Sox Beat: Lackey's performance key for Sox - 0
John DiStaso's Granite Status: Sans dice, how will Hassan roll now?
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



