QuoteBusiness in the Senate ground to a halt Wednesday as Sen. Rand Paul -- aided by colleagues from both parties -- launched into an old-fashioned filibuster, as he tried to hold up the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director over concerns about the president's authority to kill Americans with drones.
Paul's filibuster was shaping up to be among the longest in U.S. history. The late Rep. Strom Thurmond holds the record, at more than 24 hours, but at about 9:50 p.m. EST, Paul had entered his tenth hour -- which is around when most filibusters flame out. As of 11 p.m., Paul was still talking on the Senate floor.
Paul, R-Ky., is one of several lawmakers -- on both sides of the aisle -- who has raised concerns about the legal justification for launching drone strikes against Americans overseas. But Paul took to the floor after receiving a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder that creaked open the door to the possibility of using a drone to kill an American inside the United States.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/sen-paul-holds-floor-for-hours-in-filibuster-cia-nominee-over-drone-concerns/#ixzz2MpJTMpyN
As of right now it is still going on. It will be interesting to see which side folds first.
I applaud Paul because I think this is how it should be done. Don't try and change the damn filibuster rules, just go back to the days of physically making a Senator hold the floor. Good for Paul. No empty bluster on his part. And I hope it brings a ton of attention to the reason why he is filibustering in the first place, i.e. Eric Holder stating that it was conceivable that the President could use a drone attack against an American citizen in our own country. That deserves the kind of attention from the media and the public that the typical Washington game playing doesn't.
Quote from: Steelgrave on March 06, 2013, 11:58:56 PM
I applaud Paul because I think this is how it should be done. Don't try and change the damn filibuster rules, just go back to the days of physically making a Senator hold the floor. Good for Paul. No empty bluster on his part. And I hope it brings a ton of attention to the reason why he is filibustering in the first place, i.e. Eric Holder stating that it was conceivable that the President could use a drone attack against an American citizen in our own country. That deserves the kind of attention from the media and the public that the typical Washington game playing doesn't.
Agreed. That memo from the AG was disturbing and I can't believe there has not been a bigger stink about it until now. Its also nice to see that he has had at least one senator from across the aisle help him out.
what was astounding to be were the callers on the radio yesterday who were just outright idiots about the whole thing. I was stuck listening to a few of them while waiting for traffic reports yesterday, and they were just flat-out moronosaurs.
If I ever run a damn radio show, my call-in screening system is going to include a 5-question IQ test before you get to talk to a real person, and if you don't get all 5 right, you get a hurricane siren played in your ear.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 07, 2013, 06:39:24 AM
If I ever run a damn radio show, my call-in screening system is going to include a 5-question IQ test before you get to talk to a real person, and if you don't get all 5 right, you get a hurricane siren played in your ear.
That test could and should be applied to a lot of other situations.
QuoteNearly 13 hours after he started, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., ended a dramatic, old-fashioned filibuster early Thursday morning -- having held the floor for most of the day and night to rail against the administration's drone program while holding up the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director.
Business in the Senate ground to a halt Wednesday as Paul, aided by colleagues from both parties, launched into the filibuster as he challenged the president's authority to kill Americans with drones.
Paul's filibuster was longer than most in U.S. history, as most flame out by the 10-hour mark. Paul finished speaking around 12:40 a.m. local time, and his filibuster lasted 12 hours and 52 minutes.
"My legs hurt. My feet hurt. Everything hurts right now," Paul told Fox News shortly after stepping off the Senate floor, saying he believes "we did the best that we could."
"I would be surprised if we didn't hear back from the White House," Paul said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/sen-paul-holds-floor-for-hours-in-filibuster-cia-nominee-over-drone-concerns/#ixzz2MrjJcdjN
Looks like it end just after midnight. It is to bad, it would have been nice to see this go on for a while. Its not like the Senate will get much done now that the floor is open anyway.
Nobody believes that if there isn't an imminent threat that action can't be taken against bad guys.
All Rand tried to do is to get the administration to say it won't act without an imminent threat. How difficult is that?
Isn't part of the question the issue of using MILITARY assets against US citizens on US soil? Generally I think internal issues have to be dealt with by domestic law enforcement assets. It HAS to be an extraordinary situation for governors or the president to call in the military.
As far as executing someone without due process.....How do we justify the use of a domestic LE SWAT sniper to take out an armed and dangerous person without due process? Using a drone to take the person out is really no different than using a sniper. If the end is to remove an imminent threat to society you tend to use the best means available. A solid point, though, is that the asset (like a drone) is controlled by domestic law enforcement rather that the military.
A very real fear is the use of ANY asset to further a political agenda by violence. This is not new. We've all seen the movies about bad politicians using "black ops" to further their ambitions.
I'm not a big fan of Holder but he did try to narrow the cases down to those that would be considered an imminent threat in my opinion. Attacks like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor would qualify, I think.
Quote from: DoctorQuest on March 07, 2013, 11:48:59 AM
As far as executing someone without due process.....How do we justify the use of a domestic LE SWAT sniper to take out an armed and dangerous person without due process?
Imminent threat. No one argues that an imminent threat can't be taken out. What's at issue here is something that isn't imminent and isn't a clear threat.
BTW, a petition has been started: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/respond-senator-rand-paul-drone-strikes/Kq6d9S3l
Fixed. Thanks. For some reason I had trouble catching the URL.
^...psssst... wrong linky..... ;)
Quote from: LongBlade on March 07, 2013, 11:53:24 AM
Quote from: DoctorQuest on March 07, 2013, 11:48:59 AM
As far as executing someone without due process.....How do we justify the use of a domestic LE SWAT sniper to take out an armed and dangerous person without due process?
Imminent threat. No one argues that an imminent threat can't be taken out. What's at issue here is something that isn't imminent and isn't a clear threat.
BTW, a petition has been started: http://life.time.com/history/world-war-ii-color-photos-of-u-s-bombers-and-crews-in-england-1942/?iid=lf|mostpop#1
I may not have phrased it correctly, but I do agree that is the justification. My point is that a drone is just another means of taking out that threat. The real issue is who decides who or what is an imminent threat?
Quote from: DoctorQuest on March 07, 2013, 12:01:31 PMThe real issue is who decides who or what is an imminent threat?
to me, that was the core of what was being argued. It didn't matter if it was a drone or an ICBM or a sniper or the tire of an armored truck. The point was that you were killing someone based only on suspicion with no due process and no imminent threat
Go Senator Rand!
I could never pull off a proper filibuster myself, as I have a bladder the size of a grape. :-[ So kudos to him.
Quote from: mirth on March 07, 2013, 07:23:40 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 07, 2013, 06:39:24 AM
If I ever run a damn radio show, my call-in screening system is going to include a 5-question IQ test before you get to talk to a real person, and if you don't get all 5 right, you get a hurricane siren played in your ear.
That test could and should be applied to a lot of other situations.
Agreed.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/03/07/senator.rand.paul.second.letter.pdf
Quote from: LongBlade on March 07, 2013, 06:24:50 PM
That wasn't so hard, was it?
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/03/07/senator.rand.paul.second.letter.pdf
Right? Had to pull teeth for a couple of sentences.
I seldom quibble with Dr. Quest - but I will this time.
The Attorney General Eric Holder provided a hedging, Orwellian response to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the use of drones to kill US citizens on US soil who had not taken up arms. This is unacceptable if we have a government of laws, not men under the Constitution.
AG Holder refused to clarify his remarks in several written requests.
Rand Paul then launched his fillabuster to draw attention to this. 24 hours later Holder sent a very short letter saying that the Obama Administration would not act as judge, jury, and executioner of a US citizen not under arms.
I could see myself doing what Rand Paul did - except with my diabetes I never could have lasted as long as he did.