#StandwithRand
The libertarian moment has arrived – thanks to Rand Paul
I started writing this as Rand Paul entered the 9th hour of his historic filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director, but I had to stop. As I listened and watched, real tears clouded my vision, raining down on the keyboard – tears of pure joy.
Quite an emotional reaction, and it took me by surprise: what, I wondered, is wrong with me? But perhaps my somewhat overwrought response wasn’t so inexplicable. After all, for years we’ve been subjected to a relentless assault on our civil liberties, with the War Party running roughshod over what weak dissents have surfaced – and now, finally, a clear voice of reason has emerged, to answer their war cries with a resounding "No!" Rand Paul, it turns out, truly is his father‘s son.
Paul’s panegyric was ostensibly launched in protest of the administration’s refusal to answer a simple question about its drone campaign: "Does the President have the right to kill Americans on American soil, without trial or due process?" In his letter to Brennan, the junior Senator from Kentucky gives voice to his own answer: "I believe the only acceptable answer is no."
Brennan answered this letter, somewhat belatedly, by pointing out that the CIA is forbidden to operate on US soil, but this only underscored the administration’s evasiveness on this question, because it’s DoD that would handle such an operation, and Attorney General Eric Holder’s testimony was unclear on the subject, basically boiling down to "We haven’t, we probably won’t, but we can’t make any promises." The administration claimed there are "exceptional" circumstances that preclude any pledge not to do so, pointing to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (!) and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But of course these were military attacks on the United States by foreign enemies, and the military is fully empowered to repel all such attacks. So this is a phony argument, and Sen. Paul was determined to get some real answers.
This wasn’t just about the narrow question of the drone war. It’s about what Rand calls the "perpetual war" that we’re now waging on a worldwide scale. As he put it in his historic speech:
"Kevin Gosztola who writes at FireDogLake, writes ‘the mere fact that the President’s answer to this question, whether you can kill an American on American soil, that the President’s answer was yes is outrageous. However, it fits the framework for fighting a permanent global war on terrorism without any geographic limitations, which the present administration, President Obama’s administration, has maintained that it has the authority to waive.’
"What’s important here is that we’re talking about a war without geographic limitations, but we’re also talking about a war without temporal limitations. There is no limit, no limit in time to this war. When will this war end? It’s a war that has, I think, an infinite timeline.
"So if you’re going to suspend your rights, if there is going to be no geographic limits to killing, which really means we’re not at war in Afghanistan, we’re at war everywhere and everybody that pops up is called al-Qaeda now, whether they have ever heard of al-Qaeda or not, whether they have any communication with some kind of network of al-Qaeda, everybody is al-Qaeda, but there is a new war or an ongoing war everywhere in the world, there is no limitations."
It isn’t just drone strikes on American soil that Sen. Paul is calling into question. He challenged the so-called "signature strikes," and asked the vital questions that none of his colleagues (save Sen. Wyden) dared raise until now: how do we know who is a "terrorist"? Who is authorized to launch or veto these strikes? What standards are used to determine if a target is a legitimate one? How many civilian deaths have resulted from our drone campaign? Has this helped us or hurt us in the countries we are bombing?
Sen. Paul’s critique has gone beyond even this, extending into the foreign policy realm. He used the drone issue to make a very effective criticism of our interventionist forays in general, pointing out how the notion of a perpetual war has empowered the Imperial Presidency and threatened the very foundations of our republican form of government. From Libya to Mali and beyond, Rand Paul raised an important point, one that few have raised – and certainly no one in the Senate – and it is how we know these alleged "terrorists" are members of Al-Qaeda. The "legal" justification for our endless "war on terrorism" is contained in the AUMF that launched the Afghan war, but how relevant is this to the people of Mali – who are more concerned with where their next meal is coming from than they are focused on plotting attacks on America? As Paul put it:
"I think we were united in saying let’s get those people who attacked us on 9/11 and make sure it never happens again. The problem is as this war has dragged on, they take that authorization of use of force to mean pretty much anything. And so they have now said that the war has no geographic limitations, so it’s really not a war in Afghanistan, it’s a war in Yemen, Somalia, Mali. It’s a war in unlimited places.
"Were we a body that cared about our prerogative to declare war, we would take that power back. But I’ll tell you how poor – and this is on both sides of the aisle – how poor is our understanding or belief in retaining that power here. About a year ago, I tried to end the Iraq war. You may say, well, I thought the Iraq war was already over. It is, but we still have an authorization of use of force that says we can go to war in Iraq any time.
"And since they think the use of force in Afghanistan means limitless war anywhere, any time in the whole world, for goodness sakes, wouldn’t we try to take back a declaration of war, an authorization of force if the war is over? But here’s the sad part. I actually got a vote on it and I think I got less than 20 votes. You can’t end a war after it’s over up here. And it has repercussions, because these authorizations to use force are used for many other things. So the authorization of force says you can go after al-Qaida or associated terrorists. The problem is, is that when you allow the Executive Branch to sort of determine what is al-Qaida, you’ve got no idea."
Contary to the arrogant tut-tutting of unemployed analyst Joshua Foust – who huffed that the "filibuster of folly" was a cheap gimmick "focused on a non-issue and deflected attention from the bigger, more important issues we should be discussing" – this wasn’t only about drone strikes on Americans. It was a wide-ranging indictment of our foreign policy of global interventionism, a gauntlet thrown down in the path of the neocons who control the foreign policy department of the GOP.
John McCain and Lindsey Graham both understand this, which is why these two "amigos" were on the Senate floor the next morning denouncing Paul in no uncertain terms. Of course they had to respond: and in that response – which had little to do with Paul’s actual arguments – they only underscored their own weakness. The Amigos are losing their grip on the Republican foreign policy shop – and that is the good news we’ve been waiting for.
One particularly admirable aspect of Sen. Paul’s remarks is his raising the question of how and why Anwar Awlaki’s son was murdered in cold blood by the drone lords of Washington. Here was a 16-year-old American citizen, sitting in a café somewhere in Yemen, turned into a pile of scorched bones at Obama’s command. Sen. Paul cited the remark by presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki “should have a far more responsible father." What kind of country are we living in, asked Paul, that the President’s spokesman can evince such a "flippant" attitude toward human life, and such a young human life at that?
"There was a man named [Anwar] al-Awlaki. He was a bad guy, by all evidence available to the public that I’ve read, he was treasonous. I have no sympathy for his death. I still would have tried him in a federal court for treason and I think you could have been executed. But his son was 16 years old, had missed his dad, gone for two years. His son sneaks out of the house and goes to Yemen. His son is then killed by a drone strike. They won’t tell us if he was targeted.
"But here’s the real problem: When the President’s spokesman was asked about al-Awlaki’s son, you know what his response was? This I find particularly callous and particularly troubling. The President’s response to the killing of al-Awlaki’s son, he said he should have chosen more responsible father….
"You know, it’s kind of hard to choose who your parents are. That’s sort of like saying to someone whose father is a thief or a murderer or a rapist, which is obviously a bad thing, but does that mean it’s okay to kill their children think of the standard we would have if our standard for killing people overseas is, you should have chosen a more responsible parent."
While Sen. Paul framed his questioning of the administration in terms of what this means for US citizens, he also implicitly criticized the drone strikes overseas as counterproductive and immoral:
"Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs, the President’s spokesman replies, when there are people who are trying to harm us and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we have taken the fight to them.
"But since the kill list itself is secret, there is no way to offer a specific counterexample. It’s one thing to say yeah, these people are going to probably come and attack us, which to tell you the truth is probably not always true. There are people fighting a civil war in Yemen who probably have no conception of ever coming to America.
"[Conor]Friedersdorf goes on to say: ‘We do know the U.S. drones are targeting people who have never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States,’ so we’re talking about noncombatants who have never pledged to carry out attacks are being attacked overseas. Think about it, if that’s going to be the standard at home, [we're killing] people who have never really truly been involved with combat against us. Take Pakistan where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. This is more from Friedersdorf: ‘As Obama nears the end of his term, officials said the kill list in Pakistan has slipped to fewer than ten al-Qaida targets, down from as many as two dozen, and yet we’re killing hundreds of people in Pakistan.’"
I could go on quoting from the speech for many more thousands of words, but the point, I believe, has been made: this wasn’t just a jeremiad against the currently unlikely prospect of a drone attack on Americans sitting around in a Starbucks – it was a wide-ranging and well-informed critique of the whole post-9/11 hysteria that has turned this country into the 21st century equivalent of Mordor, and turned America into what is fast becoming a police state.
That’s why there was such a tremendous response from the American people: on Twitter, and no doubt on the phones of those Republican Senators who ran to Capitol Hill to see what all the excitement was about. When I called Sen. Marco Rubio’s office and demanded to know if and when the Senator was going to get down to the floor to lend support to Rand, the astonished aide told me Sen. Rubio was "snowed in." Well, I must’ve been one among many callers, because half an hour later I saw Rubio on the floor, and he even managed to get in on the action – albeit with a distinct and quite visible lack of enthusiasm.
From what I’ve been able to learn, the filibuster was a spontaneous thing: Rand didn’t even realize the vote on Brennan was about to be held, he thought it was going to be the next day. So it looks like the three ringleaders – Rand, Mike Lee, and (ahem!) Ted Cruz, decided to do it on the spot: aides were sent scurrying to come up with material, and they did a good job. No reading from the phone book.
Part of what made this a signal event was that this was no pro forma type filibuster of the modern school, in which the Senator merely has to make known his or her intention to filibuster, but not actually get up there and speak. This was the real thing, and it was substantive. The Senate actually debated an important policy matter in the old style, with references to Shakespeare, and rhetorical flourishes the like of which we haven’t seen in many years. It was, in short, a paleo moment – and, politically, it was the Libertarian Moment, i.e. that moment in which a substantial body of Americans was rooting for a champion of liberty against the puffed-up conceit and criminal depredations of an overweening federal government.
Being politicians, with their fingers perpetually in the wind, the Republicans who got up off their fat butts and ran down to bask in Paul’s limelight did so out of political necessity rather than commitment to principle. After all, where were Minority Whip John Cornyn, Saxby Chambliss, Pat Toomey, and the rest during the Bush years? A good part of the answer is provided by Jim Antle, writing in the Daily Caller, who cites an interesting statistic:
"A Reason-Rupe poll found that 57 percent of Americans believed it was unconstitutional to launch drone strikes against American citizens suspected of terrorism. Interestingly, Democrats were least likely to hold this view, with just 44 percent saying such actions were unconstitutional. By contrast, 65 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of independents thought it was unconstitutional."
What we are seeing is a seismic shift in the two parties’ approach to civil liberties, with the Democrats now freed to exude their inherent authoritarianism and the Republican grassroots in fear of a federal government headed up by a former "community organizer." Yet this isn’t just a matter of the partisan divide, although there is some of that: imbued with a sense that something has really gone wrong with the country, and disabused of the notion that the neocon-inspired dogmas of the Bush years are any kind of antidote, grassroots GOPers rallied to Rand‘s cause with sheer joy, like the inhabitants of a long-besieged city who see the cavalry coming over the hill.
They’ve had to endure being groped by lascivious TSA agents, had their emails – and bank accounts – spied on, and endured every kind of affront and indignity because, don’t you know, we’re "at war." They’ve watched crony capitalists get rich while their own homes are being foreclosed: they’ve watched the worst rise, while they and their families and friends fall into penury. They’ve watched as we send billions overseas to fund the conceits of our world-directing "leaders," as their own prospects shrink down to the level of where their next mortgage payment is coming from.
They are aroused because, finally, someone has arisen to champion their cause: the junior Senator from Kentucky, son of the libertarian movement’s chief factotum, whose long efforts over the years have laid the foundations for his scion’s success. From Code Pink to Ted Cruz – now that’s a Popular Front coalition that’s hard to beat in terms of sheer breadth! It limns the outlines of the coalition that will have to be forged before we can take this country back from the War Party.
I trust the Code Pinkos far more than Cruz – indeed, as far as Sen. Cruz is concerned, I don’t believe he’s a friend of liberty in any shape, form, or manner. His link to the Paulian movement is one of simple political convenience: there’s lots of libertarians and "fellow travelers" in the Lone Star State, and if Cruz knows what’s good for him, he’ll go out of his way to appease them.
What was significant about the presence of so many Republicans rushing to the Senate floor to get in on the action was that they felt compelled to do so. The wind is blowing in the direction of libertarianism – and not just on the economic front, but in the foreign policy and civil liberties realm as well.
This is not to say Rand Paul is the perfect embodiment of libertarianism, or even of non-interventionism: he’s said a few things that cast some doubt on at least the kind of foreign policy advice he’s currently getting. His much-heralded speech before the Heritage Foundation was a non-starter, and his more recent statement that any attack on Israel constitutes an attack on the United States is simply a formula for justifying the "perpetual war" the Senator opposes. And yet the filibuster – a political event the likes of which we haven’t seen since that last giant worldwide demonstration against the Iraq war – shows what he is capable of.
Most importantly, it shows him that the impulse to rein in his libertarian instincts acts as a brake on his success. It shows him that opposition to foreign wars and endless international meddling isn’t an aspect of libertarianism that has to be kept in the closet, so to speak, and downplayed like some sort of affliction. With the twin disasters of the Iraq and Afghan wars all too readily apparent to everyone but John McCain and Lindsey Graham, anti-interventionism is an asset to be emphasized and articulated in just the way Sen. Paul did with such eloquence the other night. If there was an overarching theme of the filbuster, it was the unbreakable connection between peace abroad and liberty at home – and Sen. Paul brought that message home to both the right and the left.
There is talk of a presidential run, and the seriousness with which this is taken by the Republican Establishment was underscored by how quickly his chief rival, Sen. Rubio, hightailed it to the Senate floor. "Snowed in," my ass.
As of today, Rand Paul poses a direct threat to the gaggle of militarists, crony capitalists, and out of work has-been "consultants" who have been dragging the GOP down lo these many years, virtually reducing it to a regional party with little chance of mobilizing a national constituency.
I have been one of Rand’s harshest critics precisely because I saw his enormous potential as a force for liberty – and feared it was going to waste. As it turns out, it looks like my fears were not justified, and that is a great relief. Of course, we don’t endorse political candidates here at Antiwar.com, and don’t tailor our editorial policy to the requirements of any party or faction. If and when Sen. Paul veers off on some unwelcome tangent, we’ll be the first to let him – and you – know. What’s encouraging is that I have much less expectation of that occurring.
As I said in an interview on Bob Wenzel’s radio program, the libertarian brand-name has got to be protected. There are all sorts of people who are now claiming to be "libertarians," from Glenn Beck (ugh!) to Bill Maher (double-ugh!). Libertarians, who are well aware of the dangers of degrading the coin of the realm, must be equally cognizant of the danger of diluting their ideas in the mistaken belief that this will make them more palatable. What the #StandwithRand phenomenon demonstrated is that this is far too pessimistic a view to take: the public is ready – indeed, more than ready – for the most supposedly "radical" libertarian ideas. They’re just looking for leadership.
Due to Ron’s great achievement in making libertarianism into a household word, the Paul family is the First Family of liberty. The value of that heritage is incalculable. Today I have confidence that Sen. Paul, far from squandering it, will more than live up to his legacy.
Reason editor Matt Welch, whose magazine did little to support the Ron Paul movement – and often worked against it – once gleefully remarked that "Rand Paul is not his father" when it comes to matters of war and peace. Yet here is Sen. Paul taking on not only the drone war, but also challenging the idea that we should be engaged in a decades-long "Global War to abolish terrorism," as one wag well-known to Welch once put it.
No, Rand Paul is not his father. But from what I saw the other night, he sure is a chip off the old block. That’s why I #StandwithRand.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
In a terse, guarded letter in response to Sen. Paul, Holder has – finally – given a clear "no" to the original question that started this whole brouhaha: does the US government have the legal right to kill Americans on American soil without trial or due process? Clearly a victory for the Kentucky Kid – and perhaps an augury of victories to come.
I had great fun on Twitter the night of #StandwithRand, somehow acquiring over 200 more followers (!), and I urge you to join me on this wonderfully interactive site: you can do so by going here.
I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Forward by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).
You can buy my biography of the great libertarian thinker, An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), here.
Read more by Justin Raimondo
- The Libertarian Republican Heritage
(Part II) – March 5th, 2013 - The Libertarian Republican Heritage – March 3rd, 2013
- The Syrian Back Door to War With Iran – February 28th, 2013
- What Was That All About? – February 26th, 2013
- Who Funds the War Party? – February 24th, 2013
rkean
March 7th, 2013 at 8:52 pm
I also felt like crying out of relief to hear a Senator speaking the truth about drones and the US govt. policy of endless war. But I don't see these as Libertarian ideas. I think what draws people from various political points of view is Paul's anti-war and pro-civil rights points of view. Don't know if we could function in some sort of Coalition of Repubs, Libertarians, and Dems to push for peace and a return to the rule of law both inside and outside of the US.
Curious
March 7th, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Rand did a good job! He eloquently questioned who is on the receiving end in drone strikes and why the Congress fails to end authorizations for wars that have ended. An interventionist should be on the defensive because Rand is throwing down the gauntlet regarding who is targeted in our omni-war and if omni-war is in our interest. He has done what I hoped he would do. He carefully questioned our policies and brought into daylight what those policies are and pointed out that they did not make sense. Rand Paul isn't a non-interventionist. He is channeling Sun Tzu: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu
mike3
March 7th, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Another politician who denies 9/11 truth. And is all for the war in Afghanistan.
David McCarthy
March 7th, 2013 at 10:07 pm
I didn't know Cruz before yesterday so I don't know his track record and I can't judge his motivations, but I am grateful for his contribution. He added significantly to the event.
Guest
March 7th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Rand has yet to speak against drone strikes against non-American citizens. He is perfectly fine with drones killing brown people in Pakistan
Petkov
March 7th, 2013 at 10:59 pm
hilarious disinfo. It's true, the more one gabs the less truth emerges. If Ron is a libertard why was he cheered on by neocon such as Jennifer Rubin and the rest of the crowd? https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/30935740…
Libertards, just another word for right wing republican who is upset he hasn't been able to make his promised billions.
What a joke.'
Get educated: http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/did-the…
Justin Raimondo
March 7th, 2013 at 11:10 pm
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem, or else haven't read the article you are commenting on.
Justin Raimondo
March 7th, 2013 at 11:10 pm
What a tiresome rant. I'M SURPRISED IT'S NOT IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
Justin Raimondo
March 7th, 2013 at 11:11 pm
Another kook shows up in this comments thread.
Jimmy
March 7th, 2013 at 11:57 pm
Hey Justin.
Rand has a roller coaster in policy positions. I remember when he was campaiging and he called Israel our closest ally. I threw up. But then, almost immediately after taking office, caleld for the end of foreign aid (to all). I laughed.
But he voted for the NDAA. That is completely unacceptable and most certainly not " a libertarian moment"
So I liked Rand's filibuster just fine. But what do you make of the fact that he has now backed down due to the White Houses "answer" that is not an answer.
I admire the Pauls, but it seems that Rand is continuing the high-wire balancing act between hawks and realists, authoritarians and libertarians, appealing to one on one day and acquiescing on it another. Is there a better explanation? I'd love to hear it.
Jimmy
March 7th, 2013 at 11:57 pm
has been a roller coaster***
mike3
March 8th, 2013 at 12:08 am
So close to being aware of what took place on 9/11 you are! And yet so far. I wonder what it is you consider so "kooky" about a controlled demolition?
PRT
March 8th, 2013 at 12:28 am
I have to say I'm suspicious of Rand Paul, because of the Tea Party company he keeps, but perhaps he's just a man who did what was necessary to get elected. And while I'm full of admiration for his filibuster, I wonder again if he's just doing what he has to do to run in 2016. It's too early to be sure of the man – let's see how consistent he is before we crown him.
anonymous
March 8th, 2013 at 12:40 am
#standwith9/11truth
Justin Raimondo
March 8th, 2013 at 1:23 am
He's finding his sea legs on the ship of state? No one can predict the future, but as I said above I'm greatly encouraged — and impressed. He didn't have to do this. He didn't have to pick a fight with Huckleberry Closet-case and Mad John McCain. He could've gone along to get along. So that's a plus.
Loose Savage
March 8th, 2013 at 2:40 am
It is good that Rand ruffled a few feathers, but I'm not impressed with Rand's views. Anwar Awlaki did not commit treason. Jane Fonda did not commit treason. The federal government should have no power to infringe on the political views of its citizens. On the contrary, it should use its power to ensure that the states similarly do not infringe on the rights of citizens.
Boston Joe
March 8th, 2013 at 3:55 am
I agree with the 'kook'. Rand's focus is on Americans and limited to Americans in the US. Yes, he raises tangentially the killing of non-US citizens but he applauds the killing of those labeled 'terrorists' like Awlaki.
""There was a man named [Anwar] al-Awlaki. He was a bad guy, by all evidence available to the public that I’ve read, he was treasonous. I have no sympathy for his death."
Was he really a 'bad guy' in comparison to our own government?
While condemning the use of deadly drones here Rand is also arguing the case for more efficient empire abroad.
Abu
March 8th, 2013 at 3:55 am
JR: "From what I’ve been able to learn, the filibuster was a spontaneous thing: Rand didn’t even realize the vote on Brennan was about to be held, he thought it was going to be the next day. "
———-
That' s probably not true. You may want to consider Bob Wenzel's take on it:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/neoc…
Johnny in Wi.
March 8th, 2013 at 4:15 am
Justin: I always said Rand was one of the good guys. Much to the anger of many here. It was always a matter of tactics and strategy.Have a great weekend!
Ira Epstein
March 8th, 2013 at 4:18 am
Yes, the Rand Paul filabuster was a great moment for liberty. I still think, however, your earlier take on Rand Paul as Paul the lesser is correct. I still cannot forget his endorsement of Mitt Romney, his going to Israel to kiss the feet of Netanyahu, and his complicity in the warmongering against the people of Iran. His lust to be President of the United States is also troubling. That lust reveals a tragic flaw in his character, a desire to lord it over people. Like MacBeth, that political ambition, that lust for power will eat away everything that is good and honest about Rand Paul. Look at the compromises Rand Paul has already made to the cause of political expediency, and imagine what compromises he will make in the future when his goal of the Presidency of the United State comes within his grasp.
Mike
March 8th, 2013 at 5:00 am
You are truly delusional if you think libertarians are the same as republicans. LOL! What a complete moron. Try reading sometime. Believe me it works!
Geez…some people are REAL thick.
Mike
March 8th, 2013 at 5:02 am
Rand practically acted like he worships Israel and votes for sanctions against Iran. Yet he does this? He seems a little confused if you ask me. As a result I'm not going to be too quick about jumping on the bandwagon. I just don't trust politicians well enough to do so.
Mike
March 8th, 2013 at 5:03 am
Yes exactly. Justin, don't let your emotions get too much in the way here. Proceed with dire caution. Well, that's my opinion anyway.
Ron Johnson
March 8th, 2013 at 5:14 am
I was impressed and inspired by Rand's fillibuster. It was substantive and it was well presented. However, I was a little dismayed that he did not extend the basic principles of justice (charge with a crime, right to face accusers in a neutral court, dispute charges, be judged on the facts, and exonerated or convicted fairly) did not extend beyond the American borders.
I suspect that Rand does not believe Americans are a special breed deserving of special treatment. I think he knows that an argument that gores too many sacred cows will be dismissed out of hand. Politically, according the dreaded Mooooslims with the same standards of justice as good Christians would marginalize his entire argument about the wisdom of using armed drones in the U.S. When he wins this one, maybe he can extend the principle.
I hope against hope that this is his tactic.
Boston Joe
March 8th, 2013 at 5:26 am
Further, from his interview with Rush Limbaugh:
"That's a different sphere than America. That's why the military operates overseas and the police operate here. We have different sets of rules. I don't want to believe that we're gonna have to live in America as a battlefield because I know these young men and women. When they go over they're fighting for the Bill of Rights, they tell me so and I believe so, and I know that's why we've sent them. They're fighting for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but if we give up and say, oh, we're gonna have the law of war, the law of war doesn't include the Bill of Rights. "
He doesn't see a US empire. Our troops are in foreign countries fighting for our bill of rights. This is delusional and just as, if not more dangerous, than the warmongering of McCain and Graham. He makes morally legitimate our crimes overseas.
ksatifka
March 8th, 2013 at 5:55 am
I think the point is that we don't know if Awlaki committed treason. This is why, as Rand said, he should have been put on trial in absentia if the US gov't thought there was a sufficient case against him. What we did is not worthy of a country that claims to be a democracy.
ksatifka
March 8th, 2013 at 6:00 am
Obama was just reelected for god's sake. This endless presidential race is sickening and very bad for the country. Paul, or anyone, should not go public with plans to run for that much too powerful for one person office until after the midterms.
#StandwithRand - Unofficial Network
March 8th, 2013 at 7:50 am
[...] View original article. [...]
richard vajs
March 8th, 2013 at 8:09 am
Anybody impressed with Rand Paul's bs stunt can stay tuned – he will pull the football out at the last moment (like Lucy does). You don't get to be a Republican Senator from a tobacco-growing state, unless you are willing to do a "shuck-and-jive" occasionally.
Samurai Futaba
March 8th, 2013 at 8:36 am
One battle at a time. You obviously don't understand Rand's method or how the game of politics is played. You are completely wrong about thisl
abe
March 8th, 2013 at 8:46 am
I am impressed that a group of Republicans defy Neocon butt boys McCain and Graham. Kelly Ayotte pisses me off; hanging around with MCCAIN and his little jerk. Ayotte is a Roman Catholic, she needs to seach her soul and find out why she supports NEOCON FILTH!
ABE
March 8th, 2013 at 8:48 am
IS there anything more replusive than BILL KRISTOLS face? ANYTHING?
muggles
March 8th, 2013 at 9:05 am
Good column on Rand Paul. Obviously Rand isn't Ron Paul and in the past he has said/done disappointing things in the libertarian view. But we need to recognize political courage and valor when we see it. One solid point for Rand on this.
You can see from the reactions just how unsettling this act was, and the fact that a small crew of other Senators helped him defy the Empire, if only for a few hours. "How dare he delay the slam dunk nomination of a long serving CIA stooge!"
Perhaps some atta-boys for Rand on this will help to guide him in the right direction.
amacd385
March 8th, 2013 at 9:13 am
Justin, per Rand being his father's son, I have one HUGE problem.
In all the hours of Rand's excellent and cogent arguments about the insanity of the "perpetual war" that both Vichy parties of the "War Party" are allowing, supporting, and even perpetrating, Rand unfortunately never mentioned, exposed, diagnosed, publicly disclosed, 'called out', or confronted the disguised Global EMPIRE which has 'captured' and now fully "Occupies" our former country, by hiding behind the facade of its modernized, TWO-Party 'Vichy' sham of faux-democratic and totally illegitimate government — just as the earlier Nazi EMPIRE less successfully tried to do with its installed crude and only single-party Vichy phony government in 'captured' and "Occupied" France c. 1940 —- and his father RON would have railed about this hidden deceit of the EMPIRE!
And I'm sorry to have to say, Justin, that in your heart-felt and otherwise excellent critique of Rand's strong and fine filibuster speech — neither do you even mention this DGE (disguised Global Empire), which is the core cancerous tumor in the body politic of our once promising democratic Republic.
Hopefully, Justin, your next article will address this oversight by focusing on the EMPIRE that both Rand and you should always endeavor to explain and expose to your American audiences in Congress and far more importantly the public.
Looking forward to your insights as always,
Alan
@Aireck1
March 8th, 2013 at 10:04 am
Wherever we get a gain in the direction toward liberty we should welcome it. It doesn't mean we were foolish if they disappoint in some future. Foolish is throwing stones at those who happen to be helping.
Hell, even Rush was acting like he was on our side.
Really enjoyed your article, Justin.
amacd385
March 8th, 2013 at 10:18 am
To be sure, Rush, just like Clinton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama, Thomas Barrnett, Stalin, and Hitler, are all 'good actors' (while Reagan was a pretty successful class B 'actor' — but we don't need more 'good actors' left or right to enforce EMPIRE — what we need are truth tellers and 'the people' to lead themselves out of EMPIRE.
Guest
March 8th, 2013 at 10:18 am
Whenever the topic of Pakistan comes up, Rand always whines like a little girl about the doctor in Pakistan who gave fake vaccinations to Pakistani children. Not one concern about the innocent children in Pakistan, whom Rand would like to see dead because they are anti-American and anti-Semites who hate Israel.
Libertarian Party – will they have a bigger impact in 2016? | Tea Party News Report
March 8th, 2013 at 10:49 am
[...] The libertarian moment has arrived – thanks to Rand Paul – Antiwar.com [...]
liberranter
March 8th, 2013 at 10:55 am
Rand Paul, it turns out, truly is his father‘s son.
WAAAAAAY premature, Justin. As I posted on a related thead in the AWC blog, one act of liberty-nurturing heroism on Rand's part amidst a record of otherwise anything-but-libertarian-and-antiwar political maneuvering does NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, wash away an ocean of sins or make Rand an icon in the battle for peace, justice, and liberty. Rand is going to have to do A LOT more than this to prove that he's his father's son. While this latest move represents a good start (if Rand is sincere), this is only the beginning. He still has a LONG way to go. The next few weeks and months will tell.
Allison Lukens
March 8th, 2013 at 11:05 am
Sad to see so many naysayer commenters joining in to attack Rand Paul. I have absolutely opposed some of his actions (just like Justin mentions in the article), but there is not a single reason to criticize him for this filibuster. It represents to me a glimmer of daylight in the endless night that has been our 12 year nightmare war on terror.
If Americans can't make the intellectual-emotional leap to caring about anyone who isn't an American, by god, we should hold their hands and walk them through it. Maybe a lot of people have been waiting for a moment where things have gone too far for them, where they can no longer deny that this IS tyranny. Drone attacks in the U.S. have got to cross that line. Maybe Rand can get those people to WAKE UP and join us.
I am so ready to grab this moment in the spotlight and run with it. We have to form a grand coalition to end the global war on terror. We have to take every opportunity to create that landslide moment when the change goes from impossible to inevitable. We need leaders who can tap into the mainstream, stage a happening, put on a show. We need every human voice who is capable and willing to stand against tyranny united on a single goal, and the filibuster is a step in that direction.
conumishu
March 8th, 2013 at 11:18 am
Glad that Rand finally vindicated himself. He's far from perfect but, from an American somewhat selfish point of view, his tactics could prove efficient. Since I'm not American I can afford to have no passion lost on any political character in US, but I always extended some of the sympathy I have for Ron Paul to his son. If he can reverse some of the bad that was done since 9/11 in American society, good for him and good for US and let the future judge his methods.
Joe Mangum
March 8th, 2013 at 11:23 am
It's frustrating to no end to see libertarians piss all over something good cause it's not their guy. Leave the stupid tribalism to the bought and paid for D and Rs will you?
Roy
March 8th, 2013 at 11:53 am
So why did Rand vote for the NDAA, and why would anyone believe the president when he says he won't use drone strikes on Americans in America, when he has lied about so many other things?
davidj8800
March 8th, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Rand Paul’s Misplaced Celebration
by Jacob G. Hornberger March 8, 2013
http://fff.org/2013/03/08/rand-pauls-misplaced-ce…
———-
Parsing AG Holder on Domestic Targeted Killing
"I’d have to say that Paul has only managed to move the pea under a different shell in this shell game."
http://www.cato.org/blog/parsing-ag-holder-domest…
Treg
March 8th, 2013 at 12:29 pm
RAND Paul is running a ZIG-ZAG strategy to advance Liberty. Yes, it is different than his father's "Vote-for-Liberty-Straight-Down-The-Line" strategy where you don't give a hoot if you are the lone voter. Lone Votes are HARD to explain to your constituents and are often points of attack come reelection time. What RON Paul did was truly remarkable. But we should sit back and understand RAND PAUL'S Zig-Zag strategy for Liberty. I have no doubt that as a young man he thought about it all his life, as in, "If I was dad, I would do this differently"
Unlike like Ron Paul, who stuck to principle and just tried his best to gently and kindly explain it, Rand Paul appears to do this….ZIG ZAG.
He ZIGS towards the principled fight, then when the votes are in and he is clearly going to lose the principled fight, he ZAGS back over to get underneath the GOP tent for safety….
Take one of his first national TV interviews, the one with Rachael Maddow….. There he ventured out on Principal and tried to explain to the smart intelligent Rachael Maddow about how a part of the Civil Rights act violates private property and that causes some problems down the road. Yet she was not having any of it, would not entertain it, and instead jumped right in to playing the Gotcha-let-me-spin-you-as-evil-racist-republican. The story blew up and Rand Paul ZAGGED right over to Sean Hannity for GOP big tent cover and safety. Like his father Ron, the LEFT had what they wanted to give him; "a race problem",.
Rand Paul ZIGS over for Principle in the Senate on Iran sanctions, but soon sees that battle as lost, so he ZAGS back into the GOP big tent and votes with the crowd.
Rand Paul ZIGS against Foreign Aid, but runs into big pro-Israel resistance, so rather than zagging back into GOP line, he simply scratches in an exception to CUT ALL FOREIGN AID TO THE MIDDLE EAST: Except to our 'friend Israel'. With that position, he gets to ZIG outside the GOP tent on Principle, yet stay inside the GOP tent for safety. Expect Rand Paul to keep that voice on that issue.
– TREG,
Treg
Treg
March 8th, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Rand Paul ZIGs for his dad in the GOP election, but wasted no time ZAGGING back into the GOP big tent the minute that the votes are clearly not going in Dr Ron Paul's favor. For me and many of us in "the R3VOLution, the fact that he jumped to support Romney so fast was shocking, but what many of us ( and myself included ) did not notice was how fast he jumped off the Romney train once Romney made it clear on a neocon Foreign Policy. You see, it was now was now 'safe' for Rand to ZIG back to that issue, once he had zagged back underneath the GOP tent by endorsing Romney weeks earlier. Most of all, we should all take note that he did not ZIG away from the foreign Policy issue by endorsing Romney, but rather, made it clear he was ZAGGING away from Romney because of his neocon stance. Yes, the player plays the game. And he appears to be playing as principally as possible and still be a Senator that "has the support of the people".
Rand Paul on Chuck Hagel. Here the principle is a wiser foreign policy, or rather, a foreign policy that is NeoCon free. So Rand Zigs and Zags differently here. He plays the game. He joins the GOP on its resistance to Hagel, but when its clear they have "lost the votes" as he explained to Glenn Beck, he Zigs and votes for Hagel (which secretly he may have wanted all along).
So here we have our first "Republican-libertarian leaning" Senator, and he is different than our first Libertarian-republican leaning Congressman from Texas.
It seems in Rand Paul, we will have to learn to hate the Game, but not the player. We will have to learn and expect him to ZIG OUT and ZAG Back into the GOP big tent.
Watch him, when the votes are not there to stop Brennan as CIA director, go ahead and vote for Brennan, thus ZAGGING back into the fold as another Kentucky "Great Compromisers".
The Zigging and Zagging is about Rand's strategy/style of advancing liberty. It is not as straight forward as is Dr. Ron Paul's, a strategy that "runs a straight line" and does not care if he is the lone vote on any issue. That STRAIGHT LINE-LONE VOTE strategy of our loved Ron Paul, is clearly not his son's strategy. As I said, Rand's strategy is to make the argument for liberty (Zig) and if the votes are not there, (Zag) back under the GOP tent to claim that he is a "team player". Fair enough. Notice that he did just that with the Brennan vote. He zigged for liberty during his filibuster, but Zagged back to vote for the rest who all know very clearly that Brennan is no friend of Liberty. A doctor Ron Paul, would vote NO to Brennan and not care a hoot that he was the lone NO vote. While we admire Dr Ron Paul for that kind of straight-down-the-line-liberty-voting-record, don't expect to make much sense out of Rand's voting record.
Like a great player who "plays the game well", RAND PAUL collects points for being "on principle" and he then collects points for being "a team player". Yes, its a very different style than his dad. I can imagine the young twenty something Rand Paul at the dinner table and at various Ron Paul congressional events as always saying to his self and to his dad, "But I would play this differently". Well now he is playing differently. Perhaps it is us who need to be schooled and wise up to his methods of zigging and zagging. That is, blame the game, not the new libertarian player.
–TREG
Treg
March 8th, 2013 at 12:50 pm
The beauty of the Zig-Zag strategy for advancing liberty is that you can always ZIG for liberty at any time, BECAUSE, you can always ZAG back and "throw in the towel" and "go-along-to-get-along" and "be a team player", at any time. And who has described this ZIG-ZAG strategy better than you Justin? You have enlightened us all about how well the NeoCons in both parties have used this strategy time and again. They, a small focused ideological minority, have taken over the "thinking" of both parties. Well thanks to you, two can play that game. And that is why the R3VOLution was born: To infiltrate the 2-party duopoly and take over their "thinking" at the top escalones of the DNC/GOP. And many of us learned as PCs running for higher positions, that this ZIG-ZAG strategy is amazingly effective. And we are pulling liberty lovers up the organization. If the neocons did it in 30 years …. I can only hope we can do it in half the time.
–TREG
Treg
March 8th, 2013 at 12:53 pm
Maybe its Rand's Zig-Zag strategy for advancing Liberty that is confusing you. Please see my description of it below….
Treg
March 8th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
I don't see that as delusional, rather its not fighting the delusion that THEY hold and so its manipulative. Its manipulative in a good way, ie inserting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the moral high-ground pill that they happily swallow. Once that moral high ground Constitution/bill of rights pill takes effect, all sorts of new realizations will come upon the newly cured. Such as, gee if we are fighting for the Bill of Rights, does that not mean that ALL people have such rights and does that not mean its morally and legally WRONG to drone bomb a man sitting in a Pakistani cafe? Should we not arrest him if we have something on him? And more to the point which Rand did bring up, WHO is this man sitting in a Pakistani cafe that we are bombing? Where is this LIST and what does it say? How do we know what is on this list is good and enough to drone assassinate someone? Well we don't, and so as someone who stands for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I must withdraw my support for this "war on terror". …. Read below my post about Zig-Zagging strategy for liberty and ask yourself if Rand Paul is not ZIG-ZAGging. Liberty….
Boston Joe
March 8th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
"How do we know what is on this list is good and enough to drone assassinate someone?"
It is a question that we should not even ask and do so only because we have power. We should not be assassinating anyone.
There is an implied acceptance in this 'zig-zag' policy that those who are killed during its implementation are unfortunate collateral damage and that when the goal (Rand as President?) is achieved all will made right.
Why would the public suddenly realize the 'truth' if all along Rand presents such death as appropriate because they are 'bad people' instead of talking about the immorality of our empire and blow back like his father..
I also think that we should take people at their word and not believe they are lying. When Rand says we stand by Israel there is no reason to doubt his sincerity. .
RyanSmurfy
March 8th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
As Rand said, we are a nation of laws, not people.
Since Rand is a person, and a politician to boot, standing with Rand is a recipe for a new personality cult to replace or supplement the Obama and Hillary ones. Not a recipe to further the peace movement's goals' of ending drone-powered imperialism and corporate warfare.
For that America needs a broad-based peace movement toward a constitutional foreign policy favoring soft power and good-faith diplomacy, toward a constitutional economic policy favoring a peacetime economy, and toward a constitutional social policy favoring the general welfare.
While Libertarians, realists and liberals can take part in a broad-based peace movement focused on, for example, Ron Paul and Glenn Greenwald's common goals, I don't think it will overcome petty squabbles over Justin's "Libertarian Moment" or other polarizing ideological moments, from left, right or center.
cachick1111
March 8th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
I agree, Justin. I'm not entirely sure where Rand Paul is going to land by 2016, but I'm willing to hear him out and get the answers I need to make a determination. I think he is trying to find his "own" ground, and possibly his "own" stance on what matters.
The problem in having such a notable father is that finding your own identity is often very difficult. Perhaps he did lean this way and that when beginning his career, due to many influences, but he impresses me as a thoughtful person of deep conviction. The vote on NDAA, was, I think, not clever, but I believe he may see his mistake when looking at the entire drone situation. Had it not been for NDAA, perhaps the body politic would not be considering America as a battleground in the first place. Voting for it was as crazy as voting for Obamacare, and yet we find that many that voted for either actually had very little or no time to read these bills thoroughly. Lawyers wrote them and it almost takes a lawyer to decipher them, not to mention all the pork and additional bills included with them when they come to vote.
Growing up in a strong political family myself, I empathize a little with Rand and the difficulty in finding his personal ground and stance. I will stay with him for now simply because, after listening to "everything" (for all 13 hours) that I heard the day of his filibuster, I heard many statements that two years ago I doubt I would have heard from Rand. I think he is defining himself and will emerge a man of integrity and a man for America's right to believe and back in 2016.
I do know one thing. I would rather vote for Rand in 2016 than anyone else I see in the field at this point. Rubio still backs the UN agenda, which I believe is the worst possible global threat any of us face.
Antiwar.com Newsletter | March 8, 2013 - Unofficial Network
March 8th, 2013 at 3:05 pm
[...] Raimondo wrote about Rand Paul’s historic anti-drone filibuster, and the Libertarian Republican heritage Part Iand Part [...]
Zeb
March 8th, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Actually not true. He's not really been too upfront about it, but he has criticized it atleast a few times publicly.
Zeb
March 8th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
I hope so too, and I suspect it is. I assume so I suppose because he's Ron Paul's son. I mean, he heard the great Dr. Paul talking about these things for decades, surely he knows that foreigners have the same natural rights as us Americans. The two things that give me pause, however, are that he voted for sanctions against Iran, and said it was inappropriate to build a mosque near ground zero, when he should know full well there's nothing wrong with it.
Mike
March 8th, 2013 at 4:39 pm
It's not me that's confused. It's him.
Bob Terwilliger
March 8th, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Be careful Justin. Rand is NOT his father. Yes, his performance in this whole thing is admirable but, let's see what Paul the Lesser does when Israel puts some pressure on him. Hope he can stand tall like his daddy has.
Rand Paul: Touch of Genius | The Subsidiarity Times
March 8th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
[...] his father and to show those supporters of his father (even the most vocal of his critics such as Justin Raimondo and Adam Kokesh) who had harbored reservations about his own faithfulness to his father’s ideals [...]
goldhoarder
March 8th, 2013 at 6:59 pm
You are being too narrow minded. Paul managed to raise an issue in brain dead DC. That he was able to do that was a good thing. Holder not bothering to respond for the weeks leading up to it and it taking a 13 hour filibuster to get a response is incredible. Now Rand might only care about Americans. I don't know. But by just defining it as Americans you would think the crazies in the white house would come out right away and shout him down. Instead they give this carefully parsed phrasing that as long as the American isn't openly armed then we won't rain hellfire missiles on his head is really quite the admission of how far gone these lunatics are. It is good for people to hear this in the US. It starts to question one's safety. We are all just beneath their power. Whether Americans know it or not we are not to far up the pecking order from the poor brown skinned person in Pakistan if we aren't a member of the US federal government. It really is us versus them.