I have enough conservative friends (and some liberal ones) who have been praising Rand Paul's filibuster while condemning Eric Holder and Barack Obama. But I started to ask, what is REALLY the difference between Holder and Paul? When I actually started to get beyond the hype (it's been a few years since the last ACTUAL filibuster), I looked at what each man actually said.
From what I can tell. It's not much different. So join me below for a little game of Who Said It? Rand Paul or Eric Holder.
1. "'What if we’re being attacked on 9/11? What if there are planes flying at the Twin Towers?' Obviously, we repel them. We repel any attack on our country."
2. "It would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution to use lethal force within the territory of the United States to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on September 11, 2001."
3. "We reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat."
4. "Fifth Amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted."
5. "Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution. These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil."
6. "It is important, however, that military commissions [at Guantanamo], as reformed by the Military Commissions Act in 2009 and other reforms, be allowed to resume."
Answers below....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
1. Paul; 2. Holder; 3. Holder; 4. Paul; 5. Paul; 6. Holder
I'm sure you all got these right, but hopefully this does illustrate that there isn't a lot of daylight between these two men on this issue DESPITE the suggestion otherwise.