Rand Paul is like his father, he can and will speak until he is blue in his face to make extreme points. The best way to address his issues is head on.
He opposes the use of drones against Americans on American soil. That is the thrust of his issue. To underscore the point in the “Paul” brand of politics, he will hold President Obama and CIA Director Brennan hostage to his filibuster.
“I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said. “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
Let’s discuss.
When law enforcement encounters an armed suspect for which there is an all points bulletin for lookout and apprehension with the caveat that the person may be armed and dangerous, they approach with extreme caution. If the suspect is held up in a structure and demonstrated hostile intent by shooting at law enforcement or other citizens, law enforcement may decide to shoot with intent to kill the suspect. It is always more complicated with specific instances, but there are circumstances under which the suspect surrenders due process by becoming excessively dangerous.
Now, can you ever imagine a scenario in which a group of terrorists have operated in the U.S., some of whom are citizens. They have committed a terrorist act and have escaped law enforcement. They have been discovered at a remote hideout for which there is evidence that the terrorists are heavily armed and have demonstrated intent to sacrifice themselves to wound or kill law enforcement and other citizens?
What if the most safe and lethal means to eliminate and seize as many as possible is the use of drone technology? Under some circumstance, that may be the best choice. Should law enforcement be forbidden to request such support without ever considering the circumstances?
That is a worthwhile debate and discussion. Filibuster does not accomplish that.
Elected officials who have no ability to communicate, collaborate, and discuss issues are not serving citizens well and should be removed from office at the earliest electoral option.
The proper way for Rand Paul to address the issue is through proposing legislation, and not barricading himself with a wall of words. That is wacky and one might put him on a "watch list."
Comments