In a previous post, Beyond the Pale with Obama, Feb. 5, 2013, I explained why I disapprove of the president's drone policy.
Consequently, while I don't have exactly the same objections that Rand Paul has, I am pleased with what he is doing.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Rand Paul's Filibuster
In a previous post, Beyond the Pale with Obama, Feb. 5, 2013, I explained why I disapprove of the president's drone policy.
Consequently, while I don't have exactly the same objections that Rand Paul has, I am pleased with what he is doing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Agreed! It is refreshing to see a real talking filibuster, as opposed to the way it has been done in the recent past.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, am still wrestling with my thoughts on all of this drone stuff...and even though I'm not a big fan of Rand Paul, I do approve of his efforts yesterday.
KW answered as follows on the Beyond the Pale with Obama, Feb. 5, 2013, entry.
ReplyDeleteI find myself as nervous or conflicted about drones as Dan. If there is a likelihood of killing innocent civilians, then it is morally wrong. Also, I disagree with Wayne about this being a "real" war, as the authors of the Constitution understood war. When Jefferson fought the Barbary pirates, he didn't ask Congress for a Declaration of War. Of course, if you leave out he moral issue and judge this on Realpolitik terms only, you must defend Obama, whether he declared war or not.
I responded as follows there and here:
Wayne did not say that it was a "real" war as the authors of the Constitution understood war.
Wayne thinks that it is a war in the sense that the opponents have declared war on us. We can accept the fact or pretend that it is not so.
You say Jefferson didn't ask Congress to declare war on the Barbary pirates. That makes them a good parallel for Al Queda. So, in that parallel, the issue that I have with Obama is: Do you treat the enemy combatants as if you are at war or do you treat them as ordinary criminals with all of the American rights of due process? In particular, did Jefferson bring any Barbary Pirates home to be tried in Federal Court?
Finally, and this was my main point in saying that Obama was going beyond the pale, he simultaneously claims:
1) enemy combatants have Const. rights of due process if captured and
2) they can be killed without due process.
I understand the contradiction in Obama's claims that Wayne points out but I think the Obama policy may be unfairly stated. Number 2 should read: "They can be killed without due process if we find them in a situation in which capture of them is impossible." This, it seems to me, removes the contradiction?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the Obama policy was unfairly stated. I think that the policy has changed.
Delete