During a political period in which many citizens are accustomed to hearing government officials give long-winded, often counterproductive speeches, it is nice to finally see someone finally admit to it. At approximately 11:47 am on Wednesday morning, Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, began his filibuster in an attempt to draw answers from Attorney General Eric Holder and delay voting on CIA Director nominee John Brennan.

For those of you who slept through eleventh grade history (or haven’t quite reached that level yet) a filibuster is a tactic used in the United States Senate to delay the action or vote on a bill. It is generally used so that one political party can gain the high ground on votes for the matter at hand. This is allowed because under the Constitution, the Senate has the right to hold the floor for as long as possible, even if that includes discussing irrelevant subject (i.e, reading from phone books, sharing oyster recipes and so forth.)

But do not be mistaken, the most recent filibuster is nothing to brush off when your father brings it up at dinner. In the course over the past 10-20 years, technology has been evolving and rapidly changing, slowly but surely leaving our current legal precedents in the Stone Age. This holds true across the board, but particularly in regards to military involvement.

In 2012, there were 48 drone strikes in Pakistan alone, with a death toll of over 300. Don’t get me wrong, drone technology is genius invention that keeps our heroes overseas safe, but when put in the wrong hands it could prove tragic for all Americans. So when Sen. Rand Paul posed the question if 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” he was appalled to find the answer in a letter written by the U.S Attorney General Eric Holder stating:

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”

Not only is this answer disturbing, but a clear violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution that gives citizens the right to due process. So shouldn’t a member of the President’s cabinet be aware of such a clause? Apparently not.

In response to this alarming response, Sen. Rand Paul began his filibuster demanding an answer as to if the President would take such actions. After thirteen hours of unshakeable confidence, the Senator finally ended the period of limbo. He would later receive a letter giving a more exact response to the question: no.

Thankfully the bickering is over, but the issue has not been laid to rest. Not only is it disturbing that this is even an issue, but we don’t have any specific laws citing solutions to such problems. What if next time there is no Senator Rand Paul to speak up and we the people are forced into oppression by Big Brother. I understand this is a very radical and far stretched vision but as one Tweeter acknowledged late Wednesday night “If we start to give our basic rights away, what’s to say we will ever get them back.”

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones/2012
http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf