Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Rand Paul for President in 2016?

March 7, 2013 - Andrea Johnson
I liked Sen. Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster against President Barack Obama's nomination of John Brennan as CIA director.

There are a lot of things about the Kentucky Republican Senator's positions that I don't like, but anyone who stands up and says that the United States President does not have a right to use weaponized drones to assassinate American citizens on American soil is worthy of praise.

So here's to Rand Paul, Libertarian/Republican, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-like hero of the hour. Paul only stopped talking because he had to use the facilities. Apparently he even considered using a catheter to prolong his speech, but ultimately decided that would be going too far.

The North Dakota House passed a bill last month that would require law enforcement to get a warrant before using unmanned drones to spy on private citizens in a criminal investigation. Our legislators apparently have more concern for the civil rights of the citizenry than the Presidential administration or Brennan do, at least on this particular issue.

Brennan, who was confirmed today anyway, apparently has failed to speak up against President Obama's policy regarding said drones or other unsavory government practices such as torture. According to Amy Davidson in a blog at The New Yorker, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder did send Paul a letter this morning answering a question Paul had asked during his filibuster. "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no," wrote Holder. That's good to know, since Holder had apparently been somewhat foggy on that point days earlier.

I don't know if Rand Paul's filibuster was all for naught, since it may well enhance Paul's Presidential chances in 2016. It certainly hasn't hurt.

What did you think of Rand Paul's filibuster?

 
 

Article Comments

(10)

KneeAwn

Mar-24-13 8:35 PM

I think a Paul/Paul ticket could be the GOP's golden ticket.....

shoppegirl

Mar-20-13 12:07 PM

I wish we were able to reply to other comments. Maybe MinotDailyNews you can fix that. Then it would be more like a real talk forum... shoppegirl

shoppegirl

Mar-20-13 12:06 PM

I think we need to check him out furthur before we decide. The GOP is always too willing to jump in and decide someone should be a Candidate. Look at Dr. Ben Carson.. we barely know him, and people have up websites for him to be president..... i just say.. take our time, do our homework.. We don't want to become democrat Lite. We need to stay conservative, give people a clear choice... Win or Lose... lets not let the low information voters elect our new President next time around... Shoppegirl

rajiihammr

Mar-16-13 6:47 PM

The President, any President, cannot legally have a citizen assassinated. So why is it that Rand Paul's question concerning the constitutionality of an assassination by drone thought of as a question worth asking or answering? It's a stupid, nonsensical, meaningless, irrelevant question. The fact that it was taken the least bit seriously speaks volumes about how messed up the political discourse is these days.

locomotive

Mar-09-13 6:33 PM

leftwing's a little testy today.

Filibuster hangover, no doubt.

AndreaJohnson

Mar-08-13 1:12 PM

I am a reporter who blogs for the Minot Daily News.

People who commit crimes do not necessarily lose their citizenship or deserve to be targeted by drones, either here or overseas. An active combatant who is caught in a violent act is a different matter.

AndreaJohnson

Mar-08-13 11:43 AM

Unless they have renounced their citizenship or have been stripped of it or were never entitled to it in the first place, yes, they are still Americans.

Paul apparently doesn't think the current administration would misuse its power and target personal enemies, but I think he made a legitimate point that some future administration might. Too much power, unchecked, in the hands of the executive branch or Congress or the Supreme Court is a dangerous thing. There need to be limits set on use of weaponized drones and on surveillance in the United States by unmanned drones.

AndreaJohnson

Mar-08-13 8:06 AM

Praise is due when people stand up for civil rights, even if I disagree with them in general. Unless someone is actively involved in combat against the U.S. on American soil, drones can't be used. It troubles me that this administration could make use of them against Americans overseas.

EarlyBird

Mar-08-13 7:46 AM

I don't think anybody that has ever got elected to a job in Washington DC is honest, why do we expect good things from bad people?

disgusted

Mar-07-13 10:53 PM

While those 12 senators were eating at a restaurant that features $1700 meals, Rand Paul sustained his 12 hours on candy from the dish, along with fruit and tea sent to him. Obama paid for the meals, wonder if he paid for the 22 car motorcade to go 6 blocks? Rand Paul will not be 'allowed' to run.

 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web