BLOG: Does Rand Paul Stand Alone?

Rand Paul is mounting a real live talk-till-you-drop filibuster to block the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA director, and we should be paying close attention.

There is an old saying:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Over the last 11 years, we have seen such a trade-off in progress.  In search of security, our nation has taken many steps to secure domestic safety.  All of those steps have, to varying degrees, sacrificed our convenience, and in some instances our liberty.  We see this mostly at airports, but also at border crossings, and in the unavailability of things like floor plans of public buildings.

I want to be clear.  I am not one who condemns the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I recognize that military power has limits, and that means that sometimes it has to be used at times that are hard to justify because waiting for total moral clarity means using disaster as the sole justification for action.

That said, the use of military force must be justified according to our principles, not the fashion of the time, or the passions of the moment.  We cannot, and should not try, to solve every problem, settle every dispute, nor address every humanitarian crisis, especially with military force.

We are said to be at war by virtue of the AUMF of 2002.  That congressional resolution is not a declaration of war.  It is an authorization to use military force. 

That "use of force" has continued now for 11 years and has resulted in a US policy of killing people - including US citizens - who are believed to be a threat.  This is done with drones, and at last report, president Obama is personally involved in these strikes.

Should the US government have the power to decide, in secret, that you are a threat, and have you killed, with no trial, no due process, no opportunity to face your accusers?

Rand Paul has asked the administration to explain whether the president "has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial."

Shockingly, Eric Holder responded in a letter that Obama does have the authority to target Americans with unmanned aerial vehicles, but "has no intention" of doing so.  John Brennan was the architect of the "kill list", and an advocate of expanded presidential power.  As head of the CIA, he would be in a position to implement policy with minimal oversight.

A central theme of our written constitution is to deny officials this kind of power. We do not have a king that we need to trust.  We have checks and balances.  We have constitutional limits.  However, these limits remain only as long as the people stand up and defend them.  The moment that we allow our officials to exceed their powers and ignore their constitutional limitations, the constitution becomes just another piece of paper.

Rand Paul believes it's time to demand adherence to our constitution.  Does Ran Paul stand alone?  Do the voters believe that the president should have the power to kill whoever he believes to be a "threat", anywhere in the world?

You may trust Obama, but imagine your most hated president with this power.  Once asserted, these powers are available to every future president.  Eventual abuse of that power is certain.

Will we shrug our shoulders, and give the president the power to execute people worldwide, or will we insist that under our constitution nothing happens without due process?

Do we stand with Rand Paul?  Contact your senator, or the president, to support this filibuster.