Apologies, I don't seem to understand your response. I'm not asking for an excuse, I'm trying to state that your framing of the debate implies a tacit consent to the status quo. The fact that you are even advocating someone ask the questions you posted boils my blood (not that you're advocating it, that we live in a world where it's realistic to ask those questions of our leaders!).
A strong moral stand is required and, whatever the motivations or political machinations, someone is making a semblance of that stand. But you seem to dismiss it, calling Paul's question "stupid" (this filibuster is mainly based on that question). You then go on to assume the answer to that question is "yes"! Once you begin implying it's to be accepted that any answer besides "No" to the question "Would you target and kill someone outside of the U.S.'s legal borders without a Congressional affirmation of agression?" is acceptable we begin to fall down that slippery slope I mentioned.
Whoah! That line worked! I'm going to use it more often. :)
I have a problem with the status quo, but it is not the problem Rand Paul has today.
My problem is that we haven't found a way to rescind the 2001 AUMF against "any organization" involved in the 9/11 attacks, because the amorphous term "organization" has allowed us to declare war against a label.
Rand Paul's problem --- charitably (I think this has much more to do with partisan politics) --- is that he believes US citizenship should be a talisman exempting people from the war.
It is not a good idea, I think, to make long-term wars against labels more sustainable and less threatening to US citizens. So, we make it infinitesimally harder for a citizen terrorist to be stopped. Woopity-doo! That's cold comfort for the wedding party guests in Waziristan who are being incinerated by airstrikes against actual guns-and-explosives- carrying al Qaeda militants that happen to be attending.
I also think Paul's original stance defies common sense. But that's O.K., because I think he knows that too; he was just setting a trap.
Our thinking may be more in line than I believed, especially with the 2001 AUMF (So pleasant to discuss this with someone who knows what that is!).
However I think you're quick to dismiss Mr. Paul's actions. Even if it's 100% partisan politics (I'm more of the thought that this issue is at a nice intersection of convenience and personal belief for Paul) isn't any action better than no action? Since 2001 the stage has begun to be set for widespread drone and autonomous warfare, free of pesky human flesh and the laws that constrain it. Finally, we are getting some real, publicized (trending on twitter!) action to stem that tide. I say regardless of the motives, at this point support the cause as heartily as possible. We may not get another chance if this is swept under the rug (politics or otherwise).
If congress poops out a diamond I'm not going to turn my nose at the sight of a little shit, pardon my french.
If you reread the last two grafs of the comment you just replied to, I made a case for why fiddly restrictions on drone strikes are actually counterproductive (they forestall the fix to the real problem, which is that we have to stop being in a war with a brand).
The thing is, he's asking the Executive Branch to do Congress' job for it. If he wants to see constraint's on the President's authority to take military action, then he should introduce legislation to either curb the use of drones or amend the AUMF, which currently grans the President extremely broad authority.
Since 2001 the stage has begun to be set for widespread drone and autonomous warfare, free of pesky human flesh and the laws that constrain it.
The civilian casualty rate from drone warfare is an awful lot lower than other kinds as far as I can see. It's a distinct improvement on aerial bombardment.
I disagree with the partisan politics part; I honestly think that he's thinking domestically.
Here's the problem. We have a group of Americans that may at some point be slaughtered by our government (more specifically, our president, as there is no other oversight). We also have intelligence services that answer only to the President.
This is a major problem. There are more important things than the security of all individuals. Unfortunately, not all share that opinion.
On Rand Paul: he's one of the least partisan politicians I've ever seen. I wouldn't have voted for him had I had such a right, but I am glad to see him in the Senate.
As a side note: I've done a lot of political campaigning and am fortunate enough to know a lot of people on the Hill. I've also worked and am friends with "DOD contractors."
