Everybody is right on this . . .

Much as I disagree with Rand Paul's political stances, and much as I find him annoying personally (his self-importance, so unlike his father) -- still I sort of admire his honesty in doing an old-fashionged talking filibuster.

It was not designed to stop legislation, only to stall it for more debate.  That is the high purpose.  Lately, it has been used only for the low purpose of thwarting President Obama at every turn -- without even having to get up and talk for hours and hours.

But what's it about?   The controversial drone, target-killing without prior clearance by anyone outside the administration.    I have serious questions myself about the lack of oversight.

But the specific measure that prompted Rand's filibuster is the lack of Congressional oversight allowed Congress -- and Attorney General Eric Holder's less than stellar testimony when asked directly if the president had the authority to order the killing of an American citizen in the U. S.

He gave a vague answer -- I can't imagine any circumstances under which that would happen, but, well, -- and then he more or less said yes.   This produced outrage, and it got amplified into 'we should all be afraid that we'll be zapped by a drone while we sleep in our beds,' thus fueling the paranoid fear of the government that Republicans have been so good at amplifying and exploiting.

As the WSJ points out today, Rand should just calm down.  Eric Holder is right, but he explained it badly.   What he sould have said, quoting the WSJ:

"Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant."

I agree.   If we're going to have war at all, drones are the face of modern warfare.  It does require careful thought about the ethics of those not in the heat of battle cooly taking down those who are.   But is that fundamentally, and morally, different from a general sitting in a tent a mile from the trenches directing the battle up front?

What is really the issue here that should be debated -- and which Paul to some extent highlighted -- is the role of Congree in the declaration and conduct of war.   The Constitution gives Congress the right and responsibility for declaring war, and to the Executive the right and responsibility to conduct the war.

But Congress does have an oversight function.  And even some Democrats have been critical of the administration's lack of transparency about the drone program.   The Senate Intelligence Committee has been trying to get copies of the DoJ internal legal justification for targeted killings of American citizens (who are considered enemy combatants) without a warrant or some other, prior authorization outside the White House.

The Paul filibuster also brought into clearer focus the differentiation between Congress' demand to see the legal justification used by the DoJ and the demand to see the actual tactical plans and lists of targets.   It is the former that they are asking for.

So let's all calm down.   The filibuster is over now, after 13 hours of actual, mostly substantive talk.  It didn't get to the silly stage of reading the phone book just to fill up the time and control the floor.   Let there be an honest debate on the larger issues -- but let them go ahead now and vote on Brennan's confirmation as the new Secretary of Defense.

Ralph