Pauling: droning on and on and filling up the buster

There is not much about Rand Paul, his father Ron or his brothers Radical, Ramble, Random and Rabid that interest or intrigue me; that is except their dedication to principles.  Now, mind you, even there I don’t join their camp followers – but I have to say that today, I think Rand Paul is rising to the level of the heroic.  Okay, that is an exaggeration, but he is doing something extremely important for all of us, for peace and for our freedom.   I don’t mean holding up the confirmation vote for John Brennan as director of the CIA.  Most of the time, I think filibusters are anti-democratic and roadblocks to the proper functions of government; they are executed by a minority, which simply refuses to give in and continues to talk until there is no talk left in them.  Rand Paul has promised to do just that, talk as long as he is able to continue talking – but he is also saying something.

It is not the filibuster I admire, instead it is the subject on which he is basing his endless string of words – drones for which I admire him.  I won’t try and define the subject or fill in any of the multitude of details that Senator Paul is reading to the empty seats in the Senate.  But for months I have been thinking about the subject – it really worries me.  No it does more than worry me, it scares me, it terrifies me.   Enough hyperbole, how about settling for concern?  Drones concern me as all technology concerns me; I don’t think technology is controllable.  Once let loose on the world a technological thing just keeps evolving on its own logic – advancing as far and as fast as its creators can take it; the creators don’t control what they create, they simple take the technology where it leads them.   Some of the technological developments are just annoying, like the ubiquitous cellular phones with its ever present conversations, text-messaging and application applying.  But others are dangerous, life-threatening and potentially peace and freedom destroying – drones fall into that category for me.

Daily we here of another Al-Qaeda leader killed by a drone.  They are tracked by their cell phones signals, their pacemakers or their Facebook page; the drones follow the terrorist chieftains into their lairs; sniff out and killed them when a living soldier would never been be able to get in and kill anyone.  When the announcements of the kills are made, we are encouraged to cheer – another bad guy down, a score for our side, yeah: “the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.”  And who, one might ask, are the terrorist? Why, whomever our all knowing, all powerful government says, that person is a terrorist; nothing shields them, no law protects them.  Kill them, kill them one and all.  Who orders those drone attacks?  Is the president informed on each attack, does he a approve it, or does a general, a colonel, a major or maybe a sergeant make the decision?  Just how, pray tell, are those decisions made and where are the checks and balances?

It does not matter where the terrorist is or what his nationality – every terrorist is fair game for the government drones.   In Afghanistan, in Pakistan and who knows, in California next week or next year.  I always thought it took an act of congress to declare war; and I always thought attacking targets in another country was an act of war.  Does congress vote in secret on each of these drone attacks, has it authorized the president to declare war, who has the power to unilaterally condemn a person to death by droning?  Put the shoe on the other foot for the moment: suppose the Pakistanis sent a death squad to Chicago to kill its designated enemies, its terrorist opponents, would that not be an act of war?  If the Pakistanis are allowed to kill people in the United States, how is the United States allowed to kill people in Pakistan, or any other country?  This week, without an act of congress, a vote of the people or indeed any fanfare, we sent a small group of soldiers to Mali to support the French – ten soldiers; and just what can ten soldiers do?  Why, they can direct drones, can’t they?

Senator Paul is challenging the president and his administration on the issue of drones and their use.  Should the government at any level be able to employ drones without the oversight of congress – the advise and consent of congress?  I think not; I think Rand Paul is right about this.  The issue of drones is bigger than second amendment and gun battles, bigger than immigration and budget fights.  I think drones is potentially the most important constitutional issue facing the country in 2013.  We already know the administration believes it possess the right, the authority to kill an American citizen in another country with a drone; it is not much of leap of faith to have this or a future administration that believes it posses the authority to kill an American citizen with a drone in this country.

Mind you, the terrorists killed by drones  are not found guilty by jury of their peers.  They are not sentenced by a duly appointed judge according to laws of our country; they are condemned, sentenced and killed by unnamed, unknown military functionaries without any due process.  That does not sound like democracy to me.   Mr. Paul, tomorrow, next week or next month at the latest, I will think you are an idiot again, but today I think you are doing the country a very great service and I thank you.  In a representative government, it is always nice to have a representative of your point of view in the halls of government.  Today, thankfully we all have a representative.


1 Response to “Pauling: droning on and on and filling up the buster”

  1. 1 rexdstock1 March 7, 2013 at 7:46 am

    Good one, Kenny. As much as I dislike what Rand rids rather raucously, I’m glad too that he got up and did this.

    The mother f’er Ted Cruz coming along for the ride sickens me–damn, he even looks like Joe McCarthy.

    >________________________________ > From: ADAMS – GAMING BUSINESS REVIEW >To: >Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:18 PM >Subject: [New post] Pauling: droning on and on and filling up the buster > > > >Ken Adams posted: “There is not much about Rand Paul, his father Ron or his brothers Radical, Ramble, Random and Rabid that interest or intrigue me; that is except their dedication to principles. Now, mind you, even there I don’t join their camp followers – but I have to s” >

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


This is a personal blog and the information in articles posted here represents my personal views. It does not necessarily represent the views of people, institutions or organizations that I may or may not be related with, and is not sponsored or endorsed by them unless stated explicitly. Comments and other public postings are the sole responsibility of their authors, and I shall not take any responsibility and liability for any libel or litigation that results from information written in or as a direct result of information written in a comment. All trademarks, copyrights, and registered names used or cited by this website are the property of their respective owners. I am not responsible for the contents or the reliability of any articles excerpted herein or linked websites and do not necessarily endorse the views expressed within them. I cannot guarantee that these links will work all of the time and have no control over the availability of the linked pages.


March 2013
« Feb   Apr »

%d bloggers like this: