Nicely put, Tom:)

Decius wrote:
On the one hand, its easy to be cynical about Rand Paul's filibuster. Under U.S. policy, drone strikes cannot be used against a U.S. citizen unless a capture operation would be infeasible. Its hard to imagine such circumstances existing within the United States. Domestic drone strikes are simply not on the table.

Paul could have chosen to filibuster, instead, about a variety of civil liberties issues that are, in fact, on the table. Suspicionless searches of electronics at border crossings, warrant requirements for email that has been stored longer than 180 days, prosecutorial overreach in computer fraud and abuse cases, or perhaps the still murky framework under which U.S. citizens can be detained for suspected terrorist activities.

Instead he chose to make an issue out of a non-issue - such a non-issue that Eric Holder was able to provide what amounts to a one word response.

So what difference does it make?

The partisan dynamics are telling. Liberals who would have been roaring with approval if the exact same rant had been delivered by a Democratic Senator 6 years ago are sheepishly quiet and muttering about obstruction of Senate processes. Members of the conservative base who all had knives out for the Constitution during the same timeframe are suddenly trending hash tags on twitter in support of this.

Obviously, the real intent is to rile up that base. A base so utterly confused that it supports Paul's filibuster regarding drone strikes but has no problem with the due process free detention of Jose Padilla because, you know, "Padilla... is a terrorist, a terrorist at war with this country."

Its hard to take people like that seriously.

However, I've decided that Rand Paul might have done some good with this filibuster. Most Americans support the drone strike policy, because they haven't really thought about it. As far as they are concerned, places like Pakistan and Yemen are more abstract ideas than actual places. The idea of rockets raining down on their own suburbs is a different story. By ranting about that possibility, Rand Paul forces people to stop and THINK about what its like to be on the other end of the stick.

He also reinforces the idea that government power ought to have limits. Its important to reinforce that idea. Its important to talk about it.

At the heart of the ability of government leaders to undermine civil liberties is the strong support their partisan supporters seem to provide for their doing so. If we keep reenforcing the fact that there ought to be limits, perhaps some people will remember that the next time their own party is in power.