4 ms·

Read an interesting column the other day that pointed out that in Washington there's plenty of bipartisanship -- when it comes to creating the security state. N

Read an interesting column the other day that pointed out that in Washington there's plenty of bipartisanship -- when it comes to creating the security state. Not so much for other things. Paul ended up taking a hit from all sides on his mini-filibuster. And it was a rather odd assortment of politicians that supported him. I'm glad the AG saw fit to answer after six weeks, and it looks like Paul is happy with the answer -- for now. This type of thing is a hall of mirrors, though. What defines "combat"? Were the Americans targeted in Africa participating in combat? Supporters of Paul will say that he's only following the questions, that the administration is stonewalling. Supporters of the administration (and the Republican status quo) will say that such questions do not deserve answers. So here we are. Bit of a sidebar: I honestly feel that these libertarian themes are going to play a big role in politics over the next few years. I feel so strongly I created a blog yesterday to summarize libertarian-oriented news and commentary to record how it all plays out http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/ http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/ Note: we should also be clear about the larger picture. A senator, who is charged with overseeing the "architecture" of the government, asked an executive department official for some clarity on an issue. After six weeks he received it and is happy with it. There's nothing binding here. He just got an opinion on how things are currently being interpreted. The president is perfectly able to re-interpret the law in a different way tomorrow if he chooses. In fact, one of the reasons for asking the question it to determine whether additional legislation binding the executive is required. There's a much longer post here about terms and language and how we got here. The Congress authorized the president to take any necessary action against terrorists. Either that authorization has to end, or we need a very fine-grained examination of just what that language means, perhaps with more instructions from Congress. In either case, in my mind this is the normal thing that Congress should be doing. The question is answered. The issue is not settled, and that's fine.

cpursley 14y ago
"these libertarian themes are going to play a big role in politics" I sure hope you're right.
- DanielBMarkham 14y ago
  Remember I didn't say they were going to dominate politics, just play a big role. The reason I say that is because it was clear to me yesterday when Paul took the floor that millions of people both Democrat and Republican were with him. It was the establishment that was going bonkers. Partisans on both sides of the aisle didn't know what to do. That means there is a place in the center for some kind of pragmatic libertarian movement to challenge the old guard in both parties. I won't lie to you -- the odds are extremely long that it amounts to anything. But it's the best chance I've seen in 20 years or more, and that's worth spending some energy recording, sharing, and encouraging it.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    It was the establishment that was going bonkers. In what way, by failing to agree with him?
    - DanielBMarkham 14y ago
      Linsday Graham: “I do not believe that question deserves an answer.” John McCain: "...if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms..." http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/rand-paul-receives-response-criticism/ http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/rand-paul-receives-respons...
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        2 comments hardly seems like the entire establishment 'going bonkers'. While I think his question deserves an answer, I agree with McCain that it's nothing more than a stunt. If Rand Paul were really serious about this, why not introduce a bill to amend the AUMF, which is what the President such broad authority to determine who is a combatant and deploy force accordingly? As a US Senator, Rand Paul is among the most powerful individuals in the country. He can introduce legislation to add an oversight or reporting requirement to the AUMF, or to make determinations of enemy combatant status subject to legislative or judicial review, even posterior review...or any number of other variations. Of he can craft new legislation definingthe acceptable scope (if any) of drone deployment within the US by military or civilian authorities. Either would be more productive and more actionable than grandstanding demands for answers to questions that the Attorney General has answered already. It's a funny sort of libertarian that wants to amend the Constitution to forbid abortions and prevent some people born in the US from becoming citizens, instead moving to a regime where citizenship is inherited.
anigbrowl 14y ago
This type of thing is a hall of mirrors, though. What defines "combat"? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5340078 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5340078 has the answer you seek, in this very thread no less.

cpursley 14y ago

"these libertarian themes are going to play a big role in politics" I sure hope you're right.

DanielBMarkham 14y ago
Remember I didn't say they were going to dominate politics, just play a big role. The reason I say that is because it was clear to me yesterday when Paul took the floor that millions of people both Democrat and Republican were with him. It was the establishment that was going bonkers. Partisans on both sides of the aisle didn't know what to do. That means there is a place in the center for some kind of pragmatic libertarian movement to challenge the old guard in both parties. I won't lie to you -- the odds are extremely long that it amounts to anything. But it's the best chance I've seen in 20 years or more, and that's worth spending some energy recording, sharing, and encouraging it.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  It was the establishment that was going bonkers. In what way, by failing to agree with him?
  - DanielBMarkham 14y ago
    Linsday Graham: “I do not believe that question deserves an answer.” John McCain: "...if Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms..." http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/rand-paul-receives-response-criticism/ http://freedom-or-safety.com/blog/rand-paul-receives-respons...
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      2 comments hardly seems like the entire establishment 'going bonkers'. While I think his question deserves an answer, I agree with McCain that it's nothing more than a stunt. If Rand Paul were really serious about this, why not introduce a bill to amend the AUMF, which is what the President such broad authority to determine who is a combatant and deploy force accordingly? As a US Senator, Rand Paul is among the most powerful individuals in the country. He can introduce legislation to add an oversight or reporting requirement to the AUMF, or to make determinations of enemy combatant status subject to legislative or judicial review, even posterior review...or any number of other variations. Of he can craft new legislation definingthe acceptable scope (if any) of drone deployment within the US by military or civilian authorities. Either would be more productive and more actionable than grandstanding demands for answers to questions that the Attorney General has answered already. It's a funny sort of libertarian that wants to amend the Constitution to forbid abortions and prevent some people born in the US from becoming citizens, instead moving to a regime where citizenship is inherited.

anigbrowl 14y ago

This type of thing is a hall of mirrors, though. What defines "combat"? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5340078 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5340078 has the answer you seek, in this very thread no less.