“Mister Paul Goes to Senate”

“Mister Paul Goes to Senate”

Un événement assez rare pour qu'on s'y attache particulièrement a eu lieu au Sénat des États-Unis, les 6 et 7 mars 2013. Le sénateur du Kentucky Rand Paul, fils de Ron, prit la parole pour exercer, selon une décision individuelle et nullement approuvée par son parti, la fameuse technique du filibuster, – tenir le plus longtemps possible à la tribune du Sénat en discourant, parlant, etc., pour empêcher une procédure ou un vote qu’on juge indigne, inacceptable, etc. Rand Paul a ainsi parlé pendant 13 heures d’affilé, rappelant à tous le fameux épisode central du non moins fameux film de Frank Capra Mr. Smith Goes to Washington ; on voit dans ce film James Stewart transformé en sénateur d’occasion, tenir la parole pendant des heures et des heures (autour de 24 heures), se repliant finalement sur la lecture de la Constitution pour avoir quelque chose à dire, pour éviter qu’un vote entérine un achat de terrain relevant d’une corruption caractérisée au profit d’intérêts privés dans l'Etat dont il est l'élu. Dans le cas de Rand Paul, il s’agissait d’obtenir une réponse de l’administration Obama sur le cas de l’assassinat de citoyens américains sur le sol des États-Unis par l’emploi de drone-tueurs dont cette administration est si friande. Son filibuster s’exerça à l’encontre du vote de confirmation du directeur de la CIA, John Brennan (fervent partisan des drones-tueur), qu’il repoussait d’autant par son interminable discours.

Finalement, Rand Paul obtint en partie gain de cause, puisqu’il reçut une lettre du secrétaire à la justice Eric H. Holder (sur Politico.com, le 7 mars 2013), – un texte de 43 lettres… (Nous disons “en partie” parce que la formulation de la question reprise par Holder comprend la restriction “not engaged in combat”)  :

«It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.»

Nous nous croyons autorisé à retranscrire un article du sénateur Rand Paul, racontant son odyssée des 6-7 mars 2013 au Sénat des Etats-Unis, avec diverses péripéties, notamment l’intervention d’autres sénateurs venant à son aide par des procédures diverses en cas de filibuster, soit par des interventions parlées acceptées par l’orateur sous forme de questions (sans quoi, il perd la parole et met fin à son action de filibuster), soit même par l’apport d’un thermos de thé et d’une pomme, exactement ce que Stewart-sénateur avait amené avec lui pour son filibuster dans le film de Capra et cette démarche comme une référence symbolique évidente. Ces épisodes ont marqué combien le parti républicain, qu’on considère en général comme acquis au War Party et à l’interventionnisme type drone-tueur et qui devait donc être hostile à l’initiative de Paul, se révèle désormais nettement divisé. La tension de cette longue intervention, son aspect absolument inédit, la référence implicite au film de Capra qui est clairement une référence symbolique idéaliste, – nous disions même utopique, – aux valeurs fondamentales de la Grande République malgré le peu qu’il en reste, ont suscité une émotion extrême sur l’instant et libéré, sur l’instant également, certains parlementaires des chaînes habituelles qui les tiennent (corruption, lobbying, discipline de groupe, dictature de l’extrémisme interventionniste, bref toute la panoplie du Système).

L’article a paru dans plusieurs sites et journaux, et il nous paraît être de ce fait tombé dans le domaine public, et d’intérêt public. (On peut notamment trouver ce texte sur Infowars.com le 9 mars 2013 et dans le Washington Post ce même 9 mars 2013. Dans les deux textes, plusieurs liens sont référencés dans le cours du texte, bien entendu signé Rand Paul.)

dedefensa.org

My filibuster was just the beginning

If I had planned to speak for 13 hours when I took the Senate floor Wednesday, I would’ve worn more comfortable shoes. I started my filibuster with the words, “I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak” — and I meant it.

I wanted to sound an alarm bell from coast to coast. I wanted everybody to know that our Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime. As Americans, we have fought long and hard for the Bill of Rights. The idea that no person shall be held without due process, and that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted, is a founding American principle and a basic right.

My official starting time was 11:47 a.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 2013.

I had a large binder of materials to help me get through my points, but although I sometimes read an op-ed or prepared remarks in between my thoughts, most of my filibuster was off the top of my head and straight from my heart. From 1 to 2 p.m., I barely looked at my notes. I wanted to make sure that I touched every point and fully explained why I was demanding more information from the White House.

Just before 3 p.m., Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) came to the Senate floor to help out. Under Senate rules, I could not yield the floor or my filibuster would end, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could have shut me down. The only way for me to continue and allow Sens. Lee and Cruz to speak was to yield the floor for questions.

Their presence gave me strength and inspiration. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) also arrived to help. Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the only Democrat who came to my defense, explained how we have worked together to demand more information from the White House about the rules for drone strikes. At about 4:30 p.m., Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) joined. I was flagging for a while, but these senators kept me going.

Sen. Reid came to the Senate floor to ask me when I would be done so he could schedule a vote. But I wasn’t ready to yield. I felt I had a lot more explaining to do.

At about 6:30 p.m., something extraordinary happened. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who has been recovering from a stroke, came to the floor to give me something. I was not allowed to drink anything but water or eat anything but the candy left in our Senate desks. But he brought me an apple and a thermos full of tea — the same sustenance Jimmy Stewart brought to the Senate floor in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” That was a moment I will never forget.

Sen. Cruz came to the floor again just before 7:30 p.m. and said, “Given that the Senate rules do not allow for the use of cellular phones on the floor of the Senate, I feel quite confident that the senator from Kentucky is not aware of the Twitter-verse that has been exploding.”

I had little idea of what was going on. I was allowed only to talk and listen to questions. As I started to walk around the Senate chamber to loosen up my legs, I was energized by the responses on Twitter. Sen. Cruz really lifted my spirits when he read the tweets.

Then something unexpected happened. House conservatives started appearing in the back of the chamber to show their support. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), who stayed for five hours, offered me his boots when I complained that I had not worn my most comfortable shoes. My good friend Rep. Thomas Massie from Kentucky came over. And then came the conservative cavalry of Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Doug LaMalfa (Calif.), Garland “Andy” Barr (Ky.), Trey Radel (Fla.), Michael Burgess (Tex.), Jim Bridenstine (Okla.), Raul R. Labrador (Idaho), Keith Rothfus (Pa.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Steve Daines (Mont.), Bill Huizenga (Mich.), Richard Hudson (N.C.) and David Schweikert (Ariz.).

Over the evening I had the support of Republican Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), John Cornyn (Tex.), John Thune (S.D.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.). And Sens. Cruz, Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) used the opportunity to make their first speaking appearances on the Senate floor. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) came at the end to speak, but after midnight, I had said enough.

By the end of the night, I was tired and my voice was cracking. I ended by saying, “The cause here is one that I think is important enough to have gone through this procedure.” I talked about the idea of compromise, but said that “you don’t get half of the Fifth Amendment.” I argued that we need more extended debates. And finally, at 12:40 a.m., I yielded the floor.

On Thursday, the Senate confirmed John Brennan as director of the CIA. But this debate isn’t over.

The Senate has the power to restrain the executive branch — and my filibuster was the beginning of the fight to restore a healthy balance of powers. The president still needs to definitively say that the United States will not kill American noncombatants. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment applies to all Americans; there are no exceptions.

The outpouring of support for my filibuster has been overwhelming and heartening. My office has fielded thousands of calls. Millions have followed this debate on TV, Twitter and Facebook. On Thursday, the White House produced another letter explaining its position on drone strikes. But the administration took too long, and parsed too many words and phrases, to instill confidence in its willingness or ability to protect our liberty.

I hope my efforts help spur a national debate about the limits of executive power and the scope of every American’s natural right to be free. “Due process” is not just a phrase that can be ignored at the whim of the president; it is a right that belongs to every citizen in this great nation.

I believe the support I received this past week shows that Americans are looking for someone to really stand up and fight for them. And I’m prepared to do just that.

Rand Paul