Huffingtonpost.com:

WASHINGTON — One of the Senate’s leading hawks, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), took to the Senate floor Thursday to fire back at Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), saying the Kentuckian’s rant against extrajudicial drone killings was “simply false.”

Quoting extensively from a Wall Street Journal editorial that mocked Paul, McCain also argued that Paul had belittled the growing use of drones to kill terrorism suspects by invoking the name of Jane Fonda and suggesting a drone could have killed her when she was a Vietnam War protester.

Paul took to the floor Wednesday for nearly 13 hours, hoping to pressure the White House to declare whether or not it might use a drone to strike an American citizen in the United States.

McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, was not impressed.

“I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday,” McCain said. “I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded.

This bi-polar reaction from Graham and McCain baffles me. One minute both are obsessing over Benghazi and the next week they are both chiding one of their own over the criticism of President Obama and the use of drones.

I tend to side with McCain and Graham at this point. I see little difference in a Apache helicopter, a Patriot missile or a drone. All are weapons or have weapons that can take out city blocks. All can kill. At what point does killing become killing?

52 Thoughts to “McCain, Graham ridicule Rand Paul over drone question”

  1. The only reason that I can see for these….. people….(I was nice.) to publicly upbraid Rand’s efforts is to undermine any support that he has. It is yet more internecine fighting between the old guard and and new.

    I watched quite a few hours of that. His premise was that the Senate is a co-equal branch that needs to retake its authority and prerogatives and demand answers to Constitutional questions. His question was…does the President have the authority to kill an American without due process that does not pose an imminent threat? Previously, Holder prevaricated.

    Today…Holder replied….”No. He doesn’t.” So, apparently, Rand’s filibuster worked. Its always a good thing when first principles are discussed in public by politicians. It reminds both the politicians and the public about the limitations placed on the government.

    McCain and Graham are reminding me of old men yelling, “Get offa my lawn!”

  2. clueless

    Paul got we he came for, a Holder memo stating that the US will not use drones in the US. I appreciate a filibuster to uphold the Constitution and Paul’s effort.

  3. Heh….I’m not the only one seeing them as I described.

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/164612/

    I also think this is a huge part of their angst: And Prof. Stephen Clark emails: “Rand Paul did the unforgivable: He upstaged ‘The Dinner.’ Worst of all, though thinking about it for a while, Paul decided to do it on his way into the Senate yesterday morning more-or-less on the spur of the moment. For god’s sake man, he torpedoed a whole news cycle focused on the two of them and the mysteries of conversations unheard but lovingly hinted at by both McCain and Graham.”

  4. Need to Know

    Excerpt from Holder’s original letter:

    “It is possible I suppose to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. “

    He was referring to drones.

    Thank you Rand Paul for backing the Administration into a corner on this, and forcing from them a statement that the Constitution does not allow assassination of American citizens (or anyone else for that matter) with drones on American soil.

    I’m not convinced that Obama and Holder don’t still think that they can do this if, in their judgment, it is warranted. At least Paul got them on the record against it.

    I’m wondering about John McCain. He has been one of the most outspoken critics of “enhanced interrogation” and other practices inconsistent with the Constitution. I would have expected him to be on the floor of the Senate joining Rand Paul in the filibuster.

  5. Perhaps he isn’t in to conspiracy theory as much as you are.

    Now why on earth would you think that President Obama would go around killing American citizens on American soil with drones?

    Too bad Republicans can’t look at REAL problems rather than the ‘what if’s.’

    Sequestration is going to harm Americans….yet Rand Paul looks for imaginary drones killing imaginary Americans. I guess he feels now is the time to stick his toe into the 2016 gene pool.

    For once I am going to agree with Graham and McCain.

  6. Need to Know

    @Moon-howler

    Moon, that’s a low blow. I’m looking at what Holder wrote. This is no conspiracy theory here.

  7. NTK, you ignored my question. Why is it that you think the president is going to go around killing Americans with drones or anything else?

    I think Holder’s response is totally appropriate. He basically says very unlikely but not outside the realm of possibility. What is the difference in shooting down an American and droning down an American? It all depends on the circumstances.

    Speaking of low blows, even suggesting that the president would randomly target Americans is about as much of a low blow as I can think of.

    Its time to deal with real threats to our safety and security, not invented ones. I sure didn’t hear anything about Bush abusing this same drone system. (nor should I have.)

  8. Need to Know

    @Moon-howler

    I reject that any circumstances would ever exist that would justify nullifying the Constitution and allowing our government to kill an American on American soil without due process. Holder’s initial statement keeps that possibility open, in effect stating that the President has the right and authority to do so.

    No one; not me and not Rand Paul or anyone else has suggested that the President “would randomly target Americans.” That’s nonsense. The problem is that the Attorney General of the United States of America has stated in writing that the President has the authority in some circumstances, however unlikely, to kill Americans on American soil without due process.

    1. No one is suggesting nullifying the constituion. For the record, non-Americans aren’t to be killed without due process either. If no one is suggesting that the President will kill Americans, then why is it even being discussed? I find it very insulting.

  9. Pat.Herve

    Does a Police Officer have the authority to kill an American on American soil – without due process?

  10. Elena

    great question Pat. Moon and I were just discussing this last night. What if the govt had uncovered Mohamed Atta’s plan and the SWAT team had barged in on them. Now granted, the goal would not be death, but certainly, I imagine they would have fought back and ended up dead. Is the difference only sematics? I don’t know.

  11. “It’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone,” McCain told Huffington Post…

    So, since McCain is a media hound, which one is he?

    @Pat.Herve
    The question that Rand Paul asked was…. Does the President have the authority to kill Americans on American soil that are not posing an imminent threat?

    Police have the authority…just like anyone else does, to kill someone that is posing an imminent threat to life.

    Holder was trying NOT to give an definitive answer before the filibuster. Now he has. Senator Paul wanted a clear answer as to where the Presidency saw its limits. And Paul made it clear that it wasn’t OBAMA, but ANY Presidency…….

    1. Funny how a word here and a word there changes meaning. Why is Rand even asking a question like that?

      There probably is no “definitive” answer to an abstract question.

      If we are to discuss the subject, it should start from the beginning rather than at the end and work backwards.

      Did Rand Paul pose the same questions of other presidents?

      McCain is not a leftie, obviously. Why do you ask?

  12. Pat.Herve

    @Cargosquid

    That is not the question that Holder answered.

    My question above was directed towards NTK.

  13. kelly_3406

    I have to back up Obama and Holder in this case. Presidents generally have broad, discretionary powers to wage war, if war has been declared by Congress. There is no due process required to take out the enemy, including any Americans fighting alongside the enemy. The President also has the power to incarcerate enemy combatants as POWs for the duration of the war.

    Congress authorized the War against Terror/Al Qaeda, so presumably Obama has the wartime powers discussed above, including to use drones if enemy combatants are fighting on American soil. However, the whole issue of due process has been muddied due to the Administration’s attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civil court (i.e. grant him due process) and the shadowy nature of this war in which most of the combatants do not have clearly identifiable uniforms.

    Even though I disagree with Rand Paul in this case, I applaud his effort to safeguard our rights. The Administration needs to be able to answer challenges to the use of force on American soil. Graham and McCain should have taken the opportunity to applaud Paul’s effort, then gently explain why they agree with the Administration in this case. Their attitudes suggest that there is much more to it than this simple disagreement.

    1. Thanks for explaining, Kelly. If Lincoln had a drone I think he would have used it. The enemy combatants were Ameericans.

      This American stuff is tricky business.

  14. Pat.Herve

    @Cargosquid

    but when you paraphrased, you change the context of the question.

    1. Exactly, Pat!

      Just a word or two really changes the meaning.

  15. Starryflights

    Yeah, I get it, Paul oppose using drones on Americans on Ametican soil.

    Where does Rand Paul stand on the use of our armed forces? Does he support the war on terror or not? He and his daddy have criticized drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere. Those are relevant questions he should answer. Paul’s acts give comfort to our nstion’s enemies.

  16. @Pat.Herve
    But the meaning was the same. Does the President have the authority to kill noncombatant Americans that are not an imminent threat?

    No.

    1. Has the president ever said or implied that he has the right to kill noncombatant Americans that aren’t an imminent threat?

      NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      When did you stop being your wife?

      Just as silly of a question.

  17. @Starryflights
    If you had paid attention to his speech your would know that he already answered these questions.

    1. I just bet you didnt listen to all 12 hours of that drivel Paul was spewing. If you did, then you have too much time on your hands.

      I am betting Starry didnt have time for all that blather either.

      I could care less what Rand Paul says or what his father says.

    1. He feels like he is a hero. I feel like he is a first class jerk. As far as abuse of powers, the Republicans have been guilty of this for years. How dare he try to take the high road. Plus, anyone who associates with Senator Cruz gets no respect from me.

  18. kelly_3406

    @Moon-howler

    Although Obama has the authority to do so, it is not clear exactly why it would ever be WISE to use drones on American soil. It has been said many times that warfare is ultimately a political enterprise, which our common experience tends to confirm. So Obama has to conduct the war in a manner that maintains the support of the American people. Having supported due process for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it is puzzling why the Administration would support less due process for American citizens, which must be the point that Rand Paul was trying to make.

    Unless an American citizen were actually engaged in an act of terrorism and no other resources were available to stop him, the use of a drone would seem to be massive overkill. But even this “terror-in-the-act” scenario has problems. The missiles on drones are fearsome weapons that can take out large areas. By definition, a terrorist act will almost always be in a heavily populated region or building. So how it could be used to stop a terrorist act without inflicting massive civilian casualties is hard to imagine.

    And the fallout from mistaken identity or collateral damage could truly be a tipping point in the war.

  19. @kelly_3406
    If he as the authority to use a drone, he has the authority to use other means….ie guns.

    So, if an American is NOT an imminent threat, does the President, of any party, have the authority to have someone walk up and shoot that guy in the head?

    That is his basic question. Where are the limits of the Presidential power in regards to this global “war?”

    @Moon-howler
    So, because the Republicans have been guilty of something..the Democrats are allowed to be guilty of something? Should we not try to rise above those supporting more unaccountable executive power?

    I don’t get your point. Senator Paul is not being partisan. He is seeking the limit of Presidential authority as defined by the Constitution. He did this as an individual. Where WERE the Democrats? Are they not the party that supposedly supports the “little guy” against power?

    1. Obviously no one can just walk up to people they dont like and shoot them in the head. This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

      As far as global war is concerned, there can be no political assassinations. (Thanks Gerald Ford)

      If Rand Paul were really concerned he would have jumped in there when Halliburton was getting rich off of Iraq.

    2. Cargo, polish your tin foil hat. More conspiracy theory. This is the next phase of birther. Just who has Obama supposedly tried to assassinate? Who has he tried to gun down with a drone?

      Let’s identify the victim if this conversation is to continue.

      Rand Paul is, and has always been, partisan. He only asks these questions of Democrats. I feel certain he wasnt up there, wasting time, asking such questions of President Bush.

  20. @Moon-howler

    Bush never stated that he had the power to do such things nor did his AG.

    Rand was also, explicitly, stating that he wanted a clarification so that ANY President would not think that he had this power. This question came up because Holder inferred that the President DID have this power.

    This is a NON partisan position.

    There’s no conspiracy theory here. You need to remove your partisan blinders.

    1. Obama never stated he had the power to do that either. If you saw it somewhere please leave it here along with the source.

    2. *I* need to remove MY blinders? Surely you are kidding.

      WHO is making an AH of themselves? Rand Paul. Other republicans who are supporting him. If there were a Democrat iup there I would include them also. there very well could be.

      Holder never said that. Obama never said that.

  21. Pat.Herve

    @Cargosquid

    then we must be reading different questions.

    The Patriot act infringed on many of our civil liberties – and continues to do so.

  22. @Moon-howler
    I listened to a large amount of it…. he repeated himself alot to make sure everyone understood why he was doing what he did.

    @Pat.Herve
    And I’m not a fan of the Patriot Act. But I don’t think that the Patriot Act authorizes the use of deadly force against non-combatant American citizens on American soil, not posing an imminent threat.

    @Moon-howler
    “He only asks these questions of Democrats.”

    He’s only been in office since 2011. Who else is he going to ask about executive authority?

    1. So maybe he is just too inexperienced to know any better. He should have checked with his elders or his father.

      @Cargo

  23. This is all very interesting. What would be your reaction if the AG under Bush or a future Republican President claimed or inferred the authority to kill Americans without due process and Senator Durbin filibustered to clarify the answer?

    I believe that you would support Democrat filibusters to clarify the limits of Republican authority.

    1. Oh I thought you just finished saying that it was NOT partisan. My mistake.

      I would dislike anyone doing anything so stupid.

      Why not lets have an inquiry about President Obama beating his wife and slipping away from the Secret service.

      How about him having repeated affairs?

      You believe wrong unless there was a good reason.

  24. Lyssa

    “Obviously no one can just walk up to people they dont like and shoot them in the head. This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.”

    Eh? 270 active shooters in US followed by 8 in Canada, 7 in Germany….over the same period.

    1. I should have said without consequences. No one is given permission to do that.

  25. Starryflights

    Did Rand Paul have anything to say about civilian casualties in Pakistan or Afghanistan?

    If he did have something to say about civilian casualties in either country, I could take him a lot more seriously.

  26. Lyssa

    Moon-howler :
    I should have said without consequences. No one is given permission to do that.

    I think it was a very NORMAL statement.

  27. @Starryflights
    Actually, I believe he did, but you would have to find the transcript. The filibuster concerned treating unarmed Americans under the rules of war on American soil, not in foreign theaters against enemy combatants.

    @Moon-howler
    Rand was nonpartisan. He doesn’t want ANY president with this power.

    “Why not lets have an inquiry about President Obama beating his wife and slipping away from the Secret service.

    How about him having repeated affairs?”
    I have no idea where this is coming from.
    You are treating it as a partisan thing.

    “So maybe he is just too inexperienced to know any better. He should have checked with his elders or his father.”

    Know any better about what? You asked why he didn’t go after Bush. I stated why.

    I don’t understand why you are against finding out what limits the PRESIDENCY has…NOT Obama…… in treating American citizens in the “Global war on terror.”

    1. Oh cut the innocent act. Of course it is partisan and so are you. Otherwise you wouldnt have asked me about if the democrat.

      Why do I oppose this charade? Because it is a charade. anyone in Congress needs to cut the crap and fix the sequestration situation and not play games and ask stupid questions that havent even come up. they should also stop with the weasel words.

      Rand Paul made a total AH out of himself and so did the others who aided and abetted the situation. They are wasting time.

  28. Lyssa

    Drones have been programmed to seek VA vehicles with bumper sticker stating “raise my taxes, lose my vote”.

    Rand is a libertarian – their role is to take extreme positions and be very symbolic.

  29. @Moon-howler
    I am partisan.

    I asked because you seem upset that he was talking about it..saying that you didn’t want to hear it. I’m asking you if you would want a Democrat to ask a Republican about his authority?

    If so… why is it bad for Rand Paul to do it?

    Rand Paul addressed Constitutional questions. Of course, since the President is Obama, we should just trust him as Holder suggested.

    @Lyssa
    Heh…. It’s extreme to get clarification on Constitutional authority and assert the authority of a co-equal branch of government? Okay. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

    1. PUH-leez
      🙄

      When did President Obama stop beating his wife?

  30. Btw Moon,

    What have you got against Rand Paul? He just voted for President Obama’s picks for cabinet. Hagel and Brennan.

    1. You are kidding me, aren’t you? What do I have FOR him might be a better question. It has Little to do with Pres. Obama.

      I don’t necessarily like or dislike Hagel and Brennan.

  31. Lyssa

    Talking for twelve hours IS extreme. That’s what libertarians and the ACLU do – I’m glad they do. I don’t have to agree with the topic but I am appreciative of their thoughtful, articulate and responsible perspectives. It is an issue of oversight (drones)but to be that paranoid about Obama is ridiculous and diverts attention from pressing issues. I’m not sold on Obama but to listen to the paranoia about him is tiresome. Just because he’s different from what we’ve had.

    From one of our favorites-

    ” On Wednesday, Jon Stewart couldn’t help but marvel at Rand Paul’s filibuster of John Brennan’s confirmation, given that we so rarely see an honest-to-god filibuster these days. What’s more, Stewart gave Paul a thumbs up on his position: “I can’t say that I agree with Rand Paul about everything, but as issues go, drone oversight is certainly one worth kicking up a fuss for.”

    1. well, I don’t think he necessarily approved. I will post it. You be the judge. I thought he thought he was a fool.

  32. Lyssa

    “It looks like we got us a good old-fashioned, actual talky filibuster.”

    On Wednesday, Jon Stewart couldn’t help but marvel at Rand Paul’s filibuster of John Brennan’s confirmation, given that we so rarely see an honest-to-god filibuster these days. What’s more,

    Stewart gave Paul a thumbs up on his position:

    “I can’t say that I agree with Rand Paul about everything, but as issues go, drone oversight is certainly one worth kicking up a fuss for.”

    Of course, as Stewart went on to explain, congress doesn’t really need Rand Paul’s help to not get something done. Take the sequester, for example… or universal pre-school…

Comments are closed.