Home » Forums » General Forums » Politics

A Real Live Filibuster!

Posted on: March 6, 2013 - 3:25pm
Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
A Real Live Filibuster!

 At 11:45 EST Rand Paul started the first real talking filibuster in ages. It is over the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director in response to Attorney General Holder's determination that

Quote:
It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States

Senator Paul has been highly critical of our drone strikes overseas and is now arguing that it is extremely dangerous for our government to even hypothetically agree that there could be a situation where an American citizen could be assassinated on American soil using drones. He is still going and has been covering a variety of national security/patriot act/homeland security and privacy issues.

Good for you Senator Paul, it is about fucking time someone gets up and speaks against this bullshit that we should throw away all of our rights just because the President throws around the word "terrorist". 

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

‹ The Illusion of Security Should the Redskins Change Their Name? ›

Posted on: March 6, 2013 - 3:55pm #1
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It's a start anyway. I am

It's a start anyway. I am concerned that it comes too late, however. And that it isn't going far enough. Drones on US soil is only the latest '1984'ish thing to happen. A reset to the 90's would be far better. Throw away the whole patriot act and everything attached to it.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: March 6, 2013 - 4:56pm #2
Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16463
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: At

Beyond Saving wrote:

 At 11:45 EST Rand Paul started the first real talking filibuster in ages. It is over the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director in response to Attorney General Holder's determination that

Quote:
It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States

Senator Paul has been highly critical of our drone strikes overseas and is now arguing that it is extremely dangerous for our government to even hypothetically agree that there could be a situation where an American citizen could be assassinated on American soil using drones. He is still going and has been covering a variety of national security/patriot act/homeland security and privacy issues.

Good for you Senator Paul, it is about fucking time someone gets up and speaks against this bullshit that we should throw away all of our rights just because the President throws around the word "terrorist". 

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/  

 

So? That is the way it should be. But that doesn't mean I agree one lick with his policies. I am not for ending it as a practice, because dems can use it  too. So don't cry if we do the same thing.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Posted on: March 6, 2013 - 5:44pm #3
Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It's a start

Vastet wrote:
It's a start anyway. I am concerned that it comes too late, however. And that it isn't going far enough. Drones on US soil is only the latest '1984'ish thing to happen. A reset to the 90's would be far better. Throw away the whole patriot act and everything attached to it.

Unfortunately you are probably right. It is much easier to pass a law creating all of these organizations than it is to have any chance of repealing them. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Posted on: March 6, 2013 - 5:58pm #4
Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So? That is

Brian37 wrote:

So? That is the way it should be. But that doesn't mean I agree one lick with his policies. I am not for ending it as a practice, because dems can use it  too. So don't cry if we do the same thing.

So you support using drones to kill Americans on our soil at the President's command? Without a warrant? Without any judicial review? Personally, I don't think there is any situation in which the government should be legally allowed to carry out an air strike against American citizens. You get a warrant, try to arrest the person and only if they are actively and violently resisting arrest can the government officials use their discretion to kill. 

(PS a democrat is joining the filibuster, Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon has joined Senator Paul on the floor, so at least one democrat doesn't support a police state.)   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Posted on: March 8, 2013 - 1:59pm #5
RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

So? That is the way it should be. But that doesn't mean I agree one lick with his policies. I am not for ending it as a practice, because dems can use it  too. So don't cry if we do the same thing.

So you support using drones to kill Americans on our soil at the President's command? Without a warrant? Without any judicial review? Personally, I don't think there is any situation in which the government should be legally allowed to carry out an air strike against American citizens. You get a warrant, try to arrest the person and only if they are actively and violently resisting arrest can the government officials use their discretion to kill. 

(PS a democrat is joining the filibuster, Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon has joined Senator Paul on the floor, so at least one democrat doesn't support a police state.)   

What if they're insurrectionists? The US already has the ability to take out American citizens on American soil (see George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War). If you're complaining that they might use this ability when not at war, I'm not sure how this is different than the military using any of the rest of its technology in a way that is illegal.


Posted on: March 8, 2013 - 2:58pm #6
Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
RobbyPants wrote:Beyond

RobbyPants wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

So? That is the way it should be. But that doesn't mean I agree one lick with his policies. I am not for ending it as a practice, because dems can use it  too. So don't cry if we do the same thing.

So you support using drones to kill Americans on our soil at the President's command? Without a warrant? Without any judicial review? Personally, I don't think there is any situation in which the government should be legally allowed to carry out an air strike against American citizens. You get a warrant, try to arrest the person and only if they are actively and violently resisting arrest can the government officials use their discretion to kill. 

(PS a democrat is joining the filibuster, Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon has joined Senator Paul on the floor, so at least one democrat doesn't support a police state.)   

What if they're insurrectionists? The US already has the ability to take out American citizens on American soil (see George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War). If you're complaining that they might use this ability when not at war, I'm not sure how this is different than the military using any of the rest of its technology in a way that is illegal.

The question that was posed to Attorney General Holder was in context of our current war on terror and the force congress has already authorized- not in the case of say a Civil War where Congress approves a new war. It initially started with the white paper which the administration released claiming the legal authority to kill citizens overseas

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

For which the standards of determining if a citizen can be killed are 

Quote:

(1) an informed high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;(2) capture is infeasible, and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

It then goes on to significantly water down the idea of "imminent threat" so that pretty much anyone that a "high-level" official in the government declares a terrorist can be considered an "imminent threat" even if there are no known immediate plans to attack the US or US interests. This shaky legal reasoning was used to justify the murder of Anwar al-Awaki's 16 year old son (who was a US citizen, never found guilty of anything in court). Which is pretty concerning since it is pretty obvious that even if the kid was working as a soldier for Al Qaeda, he clearly was not a leader or high ranking official of the organization. The President's spokesman, Robert Gibbs assured all of us that it was the moral thing to do because,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

Robert Gibbs wrote:

I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children.

Ah, doesn't that make you feel better? We are now assassinating Americans overseas because they had bad parents...

And so Rand Paul sent several letters to the President, Attorney General Holder, and Secretary Brennan asking,

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/02/21/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/letter_Brennan_confirmation3_Feb2013.pdf

 

Quote:

Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

To which he got the answer I quoted in the OP and which boils down to, we do not intend to but yes, we have that authority. Which is what instigated the filibuster.  

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X