Update: Drone Strikes and the Filibuster

Yesterday, Eric Holder released a memo in response to a letter from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) that stated that he could not rule out the use of targeted drone attacks on American citizens, on American soil. And that he could imagine a scenario when the president would have to make that decision and it would be legal and constitutional. In the vast expanse of the internet, the context of the four letters that resulted in the filibuster have been boiled down to two simple statements. Rand Paul: So you can murder anyone you want, anywhere, at any time? Obama Administration/Eric Holder: Yeah, but I probably won't.

I'd just like to say personally, that I've been researching the drone program and its use against Americans living over seas since the first strike happened in September of 2011. I've been talking about it and ranting about it and trying to raise awareness among my peers, but was shut down every time because there was a complete lack of concern. So as someone who has been outraged, screaming from the rooftops about this issue and getting almost no traction, I have to say that to have the Senator from Kentucky stand up on the senate floor for 13 hours saying "I heard you, I'm speaking for you, and we're going to get an answer," was awe inspiring.

Well. This started all manner of outrage. Rand Paul, at 11:47AM started a filibuster of the senate vote to confirm John Brennan as the director of the CIA. The filibuster lasted nearly 13 hours, and was the truest show of leadership I have ever seen. Social media was ablaze with support for the senator. The hashtag "#StandWithRand" was the number one trending twitter topic in the world.

Senator Paul talked, nearly non-stop for over four hours, reading from articles compiled by his staff about the use of drone strikes, and reiterating again and again that the use of these attacks would be in direct violation of the due process clause of the fifth amendment.. Until Ted Cruz (R-TX) stepped in to ask a question to allow Senator Paul to rest. He was joined by Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mike Lee (R-UT). For those of you who are not clear on the rules and procedures of a senate filibuster, here's the condensed version: The senator who has the floor has the floor for as long as he can speak. He cannot sit, he cannot eat, he cannot go to the bathroom. He can yield for a question without yielding the floor. The longest filibuster in Senate history was carried out by Strom Thurman in 1957, it lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes.

• Let's start with the funnier moments. At the beginning of the filibuster, Marco Rubio (who has been criticized by the left over and over again for taking a sip of water during his delivery of the GOP response to the State of the Union address.) stood for a question and offered Rand Paul a piece of advice "Drink some water."
• During the reading of one of the articles compiled by his staff, Senator Paul commented that Americans shouldn't be worried that while they are in a coffee shop using their iPad and having a conversation that their "cafe experience" would be interrupted by a drone strike.
• Late in the evening, around 11PM, Senator Paul yielded to a question from Senator Cruz, who spoke for nearly half an hour, reading from Shakespeare and the script of Patton, he reiterated stories from his days as attorney general in Texas. His question was followed by one from Senator Rubio, who quoted Jay-Z, Wiz Khalifa, and The Godfather.

Now, on to some of the more serious points. The question was simple; could the administration promise that it would not order extrajudicial killings of American citizens on American soil? And Eric Holder refused to answer the question. (Update: the White House released a statement after the confirmation of John Brennan today that said "Does the President hypothetically have the power to order the killing of an American citizen?  No." Too bad it took four letters, a month and a half, and a 13 hour long filibuster to get an ethical answer out of the White House.) Here are the serious highlights:

• Rand Paul in the sixth or seventh hour of the filibuster offered to end the debate if there would be unanimous consent given by all members of the Senate that were present at the time to the following resolution: "Resolved that it is the sense of the Senate that the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates the Constitutional due-process rights of the citizens." In order for the debate to end, obviously, there would need to be unanimous consent given, and before he finished reading the resolution Senator Paul identified that he knew that there were democrats present who were planning to object to that resolution. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) exercised his right to object and in his objection offered to invite Senator Paul to a oversight committee hearing on human rights to be held at a later date. (Yes, you read that right, Dick Durbin of Illinois objected to the very simple and clear fact that to execute or target an American with out proof of an imminent threat was unconstitutional. If I lived in Illinois, I'd be packing boxes right about now. 
• Toward the end of the filibuster (in hour 12) Senator Paul yielded to a question from Senator Durbin that had already (many times over) been answered. The question had to do with direct and immediate threat (as we saw on 9/11.) Sen. Durbin asked Sen. Paul if it would be constitutional for the President to order a commercial plane that had been hijacked and was headed toward a building shot down. Senator Paul rightly responded that response to an imminent and immediate threat stopped being the issue when it was identified that the Justice Department redefined imminent to include the words "even when no specific evidence of the nature or timing of the attack is obtained." to justify a drone strike on an American citizen. 
• In the sixth hour, Senator Mike Lee from Utah posed a "question" in which he very clearly outlined the constitutional issues with the drone policy. 

Here's the thing about the filibuster. It was never about not confirming John Brennan. It was never about not allowing the executive branch to respond when there is an attack taking place. It was about the fact that the white paper that the DoJ released did not require any specific evidence of imminent or immediate threat to justify the killing of an American with suspected involvement in subversive activity. The filibuster ended at 1:38AM, when Senator Paul, understandably exhausted, yielded the floor and Senator Durbin moved to end the debate and move directly to the vote to confirm John Brennan as soon as the Senate reconvened at 10AM on March 7th.

During the day on March 7th, Senators Graham and McCain admonished Senator Paul for his actions on the senate floor, saying that he was "ridiculous" and John McCain even eluded to the fact that Paul's tactics were intended to incite fear into "libertarian kids." 

I, unfortunately, have never been good at minute by minute recording. Especially when I am too engrossed in the process to care about typing out my thoughts, but this serves as at least a small explanation of what happened on the Senate floor this week. John Brennan was confirmed by a 63-34 vote. 

For at least a little while, I will sleep well knowing that there are real conservative leaders doing their jobs in Washington. (I finished writing this after midnight on March 8th, but most of it was compiled  during the day on March 7th, so if there are news updates that I missed, I apologize and I will try to get back to them.)