The Filibuster

A two-sentence memo answered thirteen continuous hours of objections made by Senator Rand Paul against the newly announced policy on drone usage put forward by the Obama administration. As someone deeply concerned about this change in policy, I couldn’t help but feel a bit underwhelmed with the ending to Sen. Paul’s political spectacle. With all of the build up to a clash over the basic protections of citizens against their governments, a nonbinding, curt, memo allegedly answered all the concerns of liberty-loving Americans. It felt like the (spoiler alert!) ending to No Country For Old Men; our protagonist was killed off screen.

The open move by the American government toward using lethal force against it’s own citizens, overseas, without the necessity of observed criminal action, a trial, or accountability for the condemning agency, rightly inspired Sen. Paul to put a stop to Senate confirmation hearings as usual and draw attention to a huge shift in the way our country sees its government’s authority over them. For many, the white paper doesn’t represent a shocking change in policy; haven’t we been using deadly force against terrorists overseas for more than a decade? But a few clarifications show that this is something far more drastic than it appears.

First, there is a traditional and important distinction between the citizen and the non-citizen when it comes to government action. It owes a special, primary duty to its citizens as established, purposeful members of a community. The duties, liberties, and expectations between citizens and their governments must be reliable and upheld on each end. For those who have not chosen to participate in the way of life of a nation, these duties may be less. In the same way the rule of law is binding to all citizens, citizenship is binding to all government action. The first important point of the drone white paper is that it proposes we stop treating Americans as citizens overseas and views them only as combatants.

How exactly are we treating Americans as less than citizens? We are denying them basic rights that all citizens receive when suspected of wrongdoing. Namely, a trial, the assumption of innocence until shown otherwise by a jury of their peers, and the ability to speak up in one’s own defense. According to the white paper, an American deemed threatening need not be taken into custody, tried, or even notified that they are being investigated. We don’t treat those whom we deem threatening inside our borders this way; why does a location change make it just?

The best objection to this line of argument may appeal to a thought experiment like this: what do should we do if an American takes up arms against America, enlisting in a foreign army and fighting a battle against us? Do objectors to this drone policy want us to protect him in battle to be captured, extradited, held, tried, and convicted? Surely not.

Surely not! In this case, however, there is a world of difference between someone who has taken up arms against America and an individual that unidentified bureaucrats have observed and assure us posed an imminent risk. Though possibly conscionable in theory, if applied by perfectly virtuous men, such a nebulous, trusting approach to deciding who should live or die goes against our entire tradition of citizens’ security through and from their government.

As the nature of warfare changes and enemies become harder to identify and combat, we will certainly have to make changes to how we protect ourselves as a country. But the answer is not to revoke the protections of citizenship and grant the government the authority to end our neighbor’s life without so much as an open accusation or fair trial. Sen. Paul filibustered in order to clarify whether this type of drone strike could legally take place inside our own country. Eric Holder’s response dealt with only this question. So far, these strikes remain tenable outside American borders.

In short, I’m glad Senator Paul did what he did, but I don’t think a memo should mollify us when what’s at stake is citizenship, the rule of law, and the death of Americans.