Juan Williams wrong to criticize Rand Paul's drone filibuster

While I often agree with Juan Williams and stand second to none in my opposition to abusive filibusters, I strongly disagree with his criticism of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in his column regarding Paul's talking filibuster last week.

I supported Paul's action and urged other progressives to support it so long as the purpose was not to deny John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director but to elevate important issues that should be unacceptable in our country: whether American citizens can be killed on American soil by the American government using drones, and the government justifying this practice with secret legal opinions.

I supported confirming Brennan but I cannot think of a worse action or precedent than killing Americans on American soil with drones being justified by secret legal opinions. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

America does not have secret justice. This practice is reminiscent of the old Star Chamber justice that was banned in England centuries ago. It might be theoretically possible to justify a drone attack in America against Americans, but I cannot think of a justification, proponents never offered a justification, and I am glad the attorney general formally wrote that it will not be done.

I emphasize that Paul's filibuster was a talking filibuster. I respect both Paul's kidneys and his tactics in this case. Talking filibusters are far more legitimate than mechanical filibusters where no senator needs to speak.

Plus, this filibuster was designed to raise the visibility of an important issue, which it did, rather to sabotage a nomination, which it did not.

If a senator wants to speak 13 hours to make a point, he has that right, and in this case, Rand Paul was right. In this case, I applaud what Paul did and the way he did it. While you won't find me saying this often, Juan Williams is wrong and Rand Paul is right.

---