Rand Paul won't Shut Up
Bentleyspop
Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 10,781
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rand-paul-conducts-filibuster-in-opposition-to-john-brennan-obamas-drone-policy/2013/03/06/1367b1b4-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html?hpid=z3
One of the oldest and most storied traditions of the Senate made a sudden return to Capitol Hill on Wednesday when a junior senator seized control of the chamber with an hours-long filibuster involving rambling speeches aimed at blocking a vote on President Obama’s choice to lead the CIA.
One of the oldest and most storied traditions of the Senate made a sudden return to Capitol Hill on Wednesday when a junior senator seized control of the chamber with an hours-long filibuster involving rambling speeches aimed at blocking a vote on President Obama’s choice to lead the CIA.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It isn't about blocking a vote on an Obama nominee. That argument is so easily dismissed because Sen Paul voted to confirm Hagel and Kerry.
It's about getting an answer about drone strikes from a pro drone, pro torture nominee.
Even hardcore liberals like Van Jones were tweeting support for Rand Paul.
I #StandwithRand
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It is amazing what motivations we attribute to someone when we disagree with them.
He has been very consistent on this, it has nothing to do with the Paul Brand. Sometimes politicians actually mean what they say. Drones and their use on American citizens is a huge issue. I know you and I don't see eye to eye on it, but it is a bit scary to think that vague criteria can legally justify using a drone in the US...I think a simple answer to the question would have stopped it. He is definitely calling attention to something, but in this case it isn't himself.
I don't care much for Rand, but I have to say I am proud of him today.
I am amazed at the idea that those politicians on the left are simply ok with Obama having this power and those same politicians cried bloody murder over torture and Guantanamo Bay. What's worse?
Imagine if Bush had said he has the right to drone strike American citizens on American soil...
Lots of you hated Bush's war on terror...well, how does it feel knowing that when Obama's term is up we will have had an 8 year extension on those policies, even adding the targeted killing of Americans to the list.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
(I loved the clip of him chowing down in the midst of this...hope he had food brought in for everyone)
Did law enforcement officials in California think of this or have this option when Christopher Dorner was on his rampage?
Rand is a creation of the Paul brand. Every position he takes absolutely has something to do with the Paul brand. I don't trust him or his motives, regardless of what words are coming out of his mouth.
And for the record, I was OK with torture and Guantanimo. Not a fan, but OK with the idea that there may be scenarios when torture was necessary. And I am OK with the president having this power as a last resort.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
McCain, Graham assail Rand Paul on targeted killings policy
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... olicy?lite
Highlighting the discord among Republicans over President Barack Obama’s targeted killings policy, two prominent GOP senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, took to the Senate floor to criticize Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s 12-hour filibuster Wednesday.
Thirteen Republican senators – including Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and the junior GOP senators from McCain’s and Graham’s home states -- joined Paul during his filibuster to show their support for his demand that President Barack Obama explicitly say whether he thinks he has the authority to order the killing of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who was a noncombatant and posed no imminent threat of an attack.
Paul has delayed the confirmation of Obama’s CIA nominee John Brennan in order to dramatize his demand for an answer from Obama.
McCain said Thursday the Senate needed to conduct hearings and an in-depth debate on Obama’s targeted killings policy, “but that conversation should not be talking about drones killing Jane Fonda and people in cafes. It should be all about what authority and what checks and balances should exist” in order to combat “an enemy that we know will be with us for a long time.”
In his filibuster Paul had approvingly quoted an article by National Review writer Kevin Williamson which said, “As satisfying as putting Jane Fonda on a kill list might have been, I don’t think our understanding of the law would have approved such a thing even though she did give communist aid to the aggressor in Vietnam (in the 1970s).”
While Paul was conducting his filibuster, McCain and Graham were among a group of Republican senators having dinner with Obama at a Washington, D.C. hotel.
Graham scoffed at Paul’s question about whether Obama thinks he has the authority to kill a noncombatant American citizen on U.S. soil.
“I find the question offensive,” Graham said Thursday on the Senate floor. “As much I disagree with President Obama and as much as I support past presidents, I do not believe that question deserves an answer.” Paul’s question, the South Carolina Republican said, “cheapens the debate.”
Graham said flatly that Obama would not use a drone against a noncombatant sitting in a café somewhere in the United States.
But there was less of a policy split that might have appeared on the surface: Paul repeatedly said during his filibuster that the government can and should use lethal force in cases when an attack is imminent.
He cited the scenario of a terrorist who was about to attack the U.S. Capitol with a bazooka or rocket launcher, as well as similar scenarios.
But Paul said the Obama administration has not yet made clear “what rules are going to be used in America. If you’re going to kill noncombatants, people eating dinner in America, there have to be some rules. Does the Constitution apply?”
When Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee he repeatedly said the use of a drone to kill an American citizen on U.S. soil who wasn’t an imminent threat wouldn’t be an “appropriate” use of lethal force.
After repeated questioning from Sen. Ted Cruz, R- Texas, Holder finally said it would also not be constitutional. Holder said, “I thought I was saying ‘no.’ All right, no.”
In his comments on the Senate floor Thursday, Graham reprised the points he made Wednesday during the Holder hearing.
But the Paul filibuster and the excitement it generated among libertarians and Republicans has given new visibility to the discord over the targeted killings strategy and whether Obama might seek to apply it to U.S. citizen who posed an imminent threat.
Graham said to Holder, “I want to stand by you and the president to make sure we don’t criminalize the war and that the commander-in-chief continues to have the authority to protect us all.” He said “a lot of my colleagues are well-meaning but there is only one commander-in-chief in our Constitution.”
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Nope.
They knew he would surface and would be easily recognized due to the overwhelming media exposure.
Dorner made the same mistake every murderer on the run who barricades himself in a single unit structure makes... insufficient fire suppression systems available.
Hail, Hail!!!
"Barack Obama and John Brennan direct the drone strikes that are killing thousands of civilians. It doesn't make us safer. It makes whole populations, from Yemen to Pakistan, hate us. Senator Paul's outrage with the president's claimed right to kill US citizens is entirely appropriate. That there is not more outrage at the thousands killed around the globe is shameful … and dangerous."
No, I guess we should have outrage over a Senator talking about the legality of killing US citizens and why he won't shut up because he's a Republican.
people are not going to remember rand paul stood up because he was unsuccessful. like everything else the gop has tried to do in recent memory.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It got a lot of press and the admin to finally write something on it. Now if they could just give a legal reason why they can do it overseas. Or if we can start having our ignorant American public realize we have no right to launch drones against a country we are not at war with.
and i agree. i think the entire drone program is an example of war crimes in countries who we are in conflict with, and crimes against humanity when we bomb civilians in countries who we are not at war with.
i have an issue with drone "pilots" getting combat medals. they sit at a desk and they risk nothing. there is no valor in that. kinda like snipers. i see no valor in that either.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
He was successful. He wasn't looking to stop the inevitable confirmation, he simply wanted and answer to a valid question that the white house or the attorney general would answer.
I am in no way a republican sympathizer, but Sen Paul used a very basic and legitimate forum to get the answer.
Which is why he needed a big publicity stunt.
Couldn't agree more.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... yesterday/
Van Jones, From the link Unsung posted for those that won't click on it
“Rand Paul was a hero yesterday,” Mr. Jones said in a CNN appearance this morning. “And what I’ve been hearing is a lot of shame from liberals and progressives who felt like, ‘Geeze we should be the ones up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions. I think this is a very important watershed moment.”
“What Rand Paul did yesterday was he used the filibuster the way it’s supposed to be used,” he continued. “… I think it’s wrong to call it a stunt … This was not a stunt, this was democracy.”
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I wouldn't say all but there are certainly some politics being played, yes.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I found myself doing this a few years ago and forced myself to stop - to listen without partisan ears.
Kind of eye-opening...liberating...amusing, even!
Common sense and accountability, among other things, are what guide me. Not a fucking party.
It would be quite interesting. Some may very well change. Mine would not be one of them, though. For me this isn't about (D) and (R), it is about Rand Paul. This is a guy who gave his own response to the state of the union a few weeks ago. No one will ever convince me that this, much like that, was not a brand-building stunt.
If Scott Brown were still in the Senate and done this exact same thing my opinion would be quite different.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"I feel so much freer now that Rand Paul has got administration to forswear a totally fictional plan to kill Americans with drones."
"But I won't feel totally free until Rand Paul has got the administration to rule out FEMA concentration camps."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."