by Clarence Page
If you took Sen. Rand Paul duck hunting, he'd probably shoot the decoy.
That's the impression first-term Kentucky Republican gave when he took the floor of the
He grabbed the national spotlight but did more to distract from the key issues of President Barack Obama's secret drone wars than shed light on it.
Paul launched his filibuster -- without a lot of planning, he later admitted -- after he was dissatisfied with a one-page letter from Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday in response to the question of whether the president "has the power to authorize legal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen in U.S. soil, and without trial."
Holder responded unsurprisingly that the administration had no such intention except perhaps in a hypothetical "extraordinary circumstance" such as the Sept. 11 or Pearl Harbor attacks.
Suddenly we were treated to a good example of why attorneys general should avoid hypotheticals. There was lots of talk after 9/11 about the need for such extraordinary actions as shooting down a hijacked jetliner full of Americans, to offer one grisly example. But Paul and his supporters suddenly dreamed up scenarios of U.S. citizens blown up at cafes by Hellfire missiles from the sky.
And that's what Paul rambled on about on the
He received the unequivocal statement from Holder that he sought regarding the president's authority to bomb Americans on American soil. The two-word letter boiled down to "no."
Paul declared victory. The
Besides, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, pointed out, as Paul launched into his flamboyant filibuster, Holder was giving the same answer to Paul's Republican ally Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
But, worst of all, Paul's grandstanding avoided the real questions about which Obama and his team need to be more candid and transparent: What is the policy under which certain names, including American citizens who have turned into enemy combatants but not on American soil, are put on the president's hit list?
And what about unarmed drones? Under what circumstances can they be allowed to peek into the private lives of private citizens from the air?
The president brought questions on himself the way leaders often do, by too much secrecy and too little accountability.
President Obama could greatly increase the credibility and legitimacy of his drone wars by laying out his criteria before the public and by seeking more oversight by
We can have more accountability that actually enhances national security without getting in its way. I, for one, am not anti-drone. As an army veteran, I appreciate their value as an effective military weapon that is much less messy than sending in ground troops and conventional bombers and fighter planes.
Most Americans approve of drones in polls, while also holding understandable reservations, as I do, about the need for accountability and the damage their use can do to our image overseas. That's another good reason, just for starters, to put drones under the
For all that, it is unfortunate that Sen. Paul did not see fit to pursue more of those urgent issues with his filibuster stunt. Maybe he'll get around to the drone war's real questions when he's ready to get serious about lawmaking.
Rand Paul's Stunt Misses the Point | Politics