Rand Paul is Right (Sometimes...)

Admittedly, I have taken issue in the past with some of the Pauls' (both Ron and Rand) stances. Yes, in theory, an almost non-existent government would be wonderful. But reread some of your early to middle political theory, gentlemen, laws and structure are what allowed us to emerge from the dark ages of pre-civilization ("nasty, brutish, and short," anyone?). Even today when we almost undoubtedly will not revert to the days of killing one another for survival, we still need some government. I'm definitely not saying that every aspect of so-called society was a good idea, or even that most of them were, but we've advanced to a point where the general basis of our economic and social structure is not going anywhere and we still need government intervention at times to keep it even a little bit fair. Be honest with yourselves, if we did not have programs like Affirmative Action or laws like the American Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act, we would still be living in a world not just mostly but completely dominated by rich, white males. (Side note: we need to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act already.) So, sorry Ron and Rand, we need some government assistance (and remember, we would not need so much if we had not in the past had government mandates meant specifically to create the unequal footing we now have to combat). Regardless, I maintain a certain amount of respect for your message and basic principles. Anybody who has read 1984 undoubtedly should admit the danger of allowing your government to become too controlling an entity, and yesterday on the Senate floor Rand Paul got it right.

Filibusters are a pain in the arse and are sometimes used in entirely the wrong ways, to fight against the wrong things (for instance, in the case of Strom Thurmond's still record-holding 24 hour-plus diatribe against the aforementioned Civil Rights Act). Other times, though, they are used to command attention to issues which are truly deserving and the use of drones most certainly qualify. The opposition to John Brennan's appointment as the new head of the C.I.A. is NOT the same as the recent fight to keep Chuck Hagel from assuming the role as Secretary of Defense. The obstruction of the Hagel appointment was largely a struggle of partisanship and mostly another excuse to challenge anything and everything Obama tries to accomplish. It was less about his qualifications than it was about the unquestionably swallowed stipulation that nobody in the U.S. ever say anything remotely critical of Israel, one of the many unfair rules imposed by the unacknowledged controlling religious faction. By the way, it is not very consistent to exclaim that the government should not be controlling our lives while simultaneously freaking out when somebody criticizes the unapologetic and often wrong actions of a government ally. But I digress...

John Brennan is a different sort of beast, as is the argument against him. This is not about a couple of remarks made throughout a long career that go against the grain. This is about this:





































This is an extremely simple document intended to protect YOU from being targeted by one of the scarier pieces of technology to come into existence in history. Drones should terrify you, just ask the good people of Pakistan, or Brooklyn. (Re: Unexplained Drone Over Brooklyn ). Even more than the drones themselves should terrify you, the complete lack of a solid explanation about whether our federal government will use them against U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil (like it's much better when it takes place elsewhere), should have you trembling. We have a Constitution. It states that American citizens suspected of crimes have the right to due process. Trial by jury. No cruel or unusual punishment. Sure, that last part has always had a foggy definition, but certainly its authors would have considered drones "unusual", to say the least. If John Brennan won't accept that, we should have a problem approving his becoming the head of one of the most powerful parts of our system.

Senator Paul was not even asking that we nix the drone program (something I'm sure a lot of people would support, if they had access to information allowing them to make informed decisions about it). He simply requested that his co-"workers" join his bandwagon and demand that we refrain from using them to summarily execute people within our own territory and that the executive branch provide a detailed explanation as to the supposed legality of their use. Oh, my mistake, he always wants the President to recall the long-faded memory of the distant past (2007) when he said that America does not torture people. This should be something we all agree on : We do not fucking torture. Even if Shep is right and it is hazy what exactly we define as "torture," that definition should probably include being denied the peace of mind in believing that you won't be killed by a drone in your own backyard.