I loathe the man but am glad someone is speaking out against it.

and his supporters.

I dislike Paul and can hardly be happy at RETHUG filibustering of Obama nominees. That said, i surely have major qualms about our drone program.

. . . Of course, part of me questions whether this really is such a matter of principle for Rand Paul so much as it is a pretext to block an Obama nominee. That said, however, I think this policy represents a major overreach by the administration, and it needs to be reined in.

hold up legislation or confirmations. The filibuster is only in the Senate rules and I see no good reason to keep it there.

Yes, it can be used for noble purposes, but at what cost? It is bad enough that the the population of CA has the same voting power in the Senate as the population of ND, and the filibuster just makes that distortion of democracy that much worse.

Yeah, yeah, I know. It ain't changing anytime soon.

A talking filibuster is the way it is suppose to be done
and I question whether Brennen should lead the CIA

I couldn't do that. Of course, I have nothing important to say anyway.

Filibuster is to get up and speak and speak and speak. If that is how he wants to spend his time and ours, reflects on him and his political views and should be out in the open.

As to Brennen, I don't know if I have an opinion. I guess the CIA is needed, it is just the way I perceive its actions, overwhelms my thoughts about who really should be in charge.

But not in the Congress.

That's the purpose of the Senate, right? A leveling between states so that the little states don't become side notes?

. . . that a President has the power to make military strikes on U.S. soil with no oversight from Congress. I'm sorry, I cannot stand Rand Paul, but to whine about a Senator's use of Senate rules (which rules, btw, the Constitution leaves ENTIRELY to the Senate to determine), when the issue at stake is of such magnitude, is really incredibly weak.

and reading aloud from Wired and from Spencer Ackerman's article about killing of Americans.

I do not go along with the idea that because a Republican is speaking, everything he/she says has to be yelled down.
In the case of Republicans against extra-judicial killing of Americans anywhere in the world, I agree.

this is a human rights issue, not a political issue.

But maybe it is the only way available. We needed a way to get to the heard of our drone program years ago. This is obviously a program hidden in the CIA, not because it needed to be so secret, but because the Bush-bama administration wanted the minimum possible oversight from Congress and any FOIA-totin' press.

Where are the Democrats that should be asking questions? Hell, they didn't even ask any questions when Cheney was running things.

And starting his run for 2016.

there ever was.

not the type of person he is compared to the fictional character.

That is all.

his father as well. I consider both to be poor representatives of anything, so I have a poor opinion of them. I am not unique in holding that opinion.

Nor do I like his father and his libertarian views. But his Dad supports one thing I believe and that is getting our military out of everywhere. Even a rat can have one good cause.

take note.

to this filibuster?

All the Senators who were pushing for a talking filibuster, ought to be in line asking Senator Paul to yield so they can speak on this subject as well -- even if they agree with the idea of sending unmanned plans anywhere in the world to blast anybody into a cloud of red dust any time they feel like it.

but also supports a talking filibuster stand up and add their voices to this filibuster? That doesn't make any sense, so I must not understand the point you're making.

should be supporting that man as the head of the CIA.

even if they don't support the drone policy.

I'm curious whether it makes you the slightest bit suspicious about the motives of the repubs leading the filibuster that they endorsed Mitt Romney for president yet there is zero indication that Mitt Romney's policy on drone use would be any different than the current administration's policy?

This has as much to do with principles as ice cream has to do with fire.

There are very few who demonstrate any sign of consistent principles. There are some like Wyden, Sanders, Franken, Brown, Warren, Gillibrand, Harken, Klobuchar, Murray, both Udalls, Whitehouse and MAYBE a few others whose principles I trust. But not most of them.

And frankly, I trust Rand Paul's principles more than most Democrats. I just don't agree with him most of the time. I don't know there is even one other Republican Senator whose name I could use in a sentence that includes the word "principles."

The reports that Wyden has joined Paul's filibuster are seriously misleading. Paul has expressly stated he will filibuster -- speak until he can speak no more. Wyden took the floor for a few minutes to state that Paul was raising some important issues, but went on to make clear that he was satisfied by Holder's letter and would be supporting cloture and confirmation.

Even if all of them have what I consider to be the proper level of concerns about out pilot-less assassination programs, one has to be smart about how to take that on, especially considering the sitting president of their own party has proven to be 10 times as ruthless as Cheney was in this area.

A senator that publicly took on such a President would not be well liked. You can use your own imagination about the various sanctions that a non-team-player Senator would face.

This is almost unheard of within the same party. When it is the other party, you can always find some Senators who see it as an opportunity to grandstand.

You are welcome to your "I'll support anything Obama does because he's a Democrat" position, but I will not support what he is doing with these drone attacks.

Otherwise someone might think you really believe that the President is prepared engage in drone assassinations in the US on an "unlimited" basis -- that, like Rand Paul, you actually believe the administration is planning (and believes it ahas the authority to) use drones against US citizens sitting at McDonald's.

And someone might think that you actually believe that a Senator that criticizes our "ruthless" President would face various sanctions so consequential that such senator would be afraid to express his true position.

Or then again, maybe you aren't being sarcastic and you really believe that. In which case, I wouldn't sit outside at a McDonald's if I were you, because you clearly would be drone fodder.

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Rand Paul made a very good argument, using Jane Fonda as an example. If we had drones and the Obama doctrine in the Vietnam era, this doctrine would permit a drone attack to vaporize Jane Fonda. All that is required is to say she is a threat to the state. That is for the 5% of the "personality" assassinations that go up for the President's approval (with no oversight). The other 95% are based on profiling, not on the identification of a particular personality. If some 22-year-old punk in Nevada sees what he identifies as a profile that can be interpreted as likely terrorist behavior, he is free to blast that person and anybody who happens to be nearby.

The thing that provoked Rand's outburst was apparently the response he received from a simple question directed to Holder. "Can the President, on his own, authorize the incineration of an American citizen with a drone rocket when that American citizen is physically inside the US?"

And the answer, evidently, was a roundabout "yes". It certainly was not a "No. Are you nuts? Haven't you ever heard of this thing called a 'Constitution', Senator?"

Obama took the Bush/Cheney doctrine and upped the ante tenfold. If this is not stopped, the next President will take it to the next step.

The administration's standard for a lethal attack in the US is broader (or, at least, more easily satisfied) than the standard for a lethal attack in overseas. And killing Jane Fonda wouldn't meet any element of the three part standard articulated for overseas lethal attacks. That standard, as spelled out in the DOJ memo would have required an informed high level US government official to determine that Fonda posed an imminent threat of violent attack against the US and that her capture was not feasible. Neither of those circumstances existed with respect to Fonda and thus under the articulated doctrine there is no basis for targeting her. Now, if the comeback is that "but they could" by ignoring the stated policy or simply declaring that she met the standard, the problem you have is that even Cruz and Paul acknowledge the President has the authority to use lethal force within the US to prevent an imminent attack -- so even under their standard someone could simply say Fonda was an imminent threat and vaporize her -- their view of the "doctrine" would no more prevent it than the current one if you believe that the policy isn't going to be followed.

Were you of adult age when the Bush administration made the case for invading Iraq?

To imply that it would be difficult to find a high ranking person willing to declare a person an imminent threat seems quite naive to me. And the best thing about it is that once the "personality" vaporizes into a red cloud, they really aren't in a position to defend themselves, are they?

Fonda is a poor example only because she was so well known. A person a little less famous could easily end up on the wrong end of the Obama/Cheney/Bush doctrine.

That was the question Paul asked.

Unless the answer is its never acceptable (the answer Paul originally gave but has now backed away from) then you always have the possibility that someone is going to claim the standard for using such force has been met when it hasn't. If you don't think that's an acceptable risk than you have to ban the use of force against US citizens on US territory without due process (however you define due process,which is unclear -- does it have to be a trial?) in every single circumstance, even the extraordinary circumstances in which even Paul agrees the use of lethal force without "due process" is permissible.

Obviously lethal force is often used. If a person has taken hostages or engages in a shootout with cops, obviously the police are able to meet that with appropriate force. And sometime the appropriate force is lethal.

You don't blast a bank robber with a Hellfire missile.

And we are not talking about bank robbers here. We are talking about people SUSPECTED of plotting against the US.

The argument for blasting people inside Pakistan is that we have no practical way to go in there with troops. That argument can never be made inside the US. The FBI can go anywhere in the US to pursue suspects, they can arrest them, and they can bring them to trial. That is how we do things here. I don't accept anything you are saying. It is repugnant to me and should be offensive to every American.

Paul played folks by claiming that the administration's policy on the use of lethal force against US citizens in the US would permit it to "arbitrarily" deploy drones against folks sitting at a restaurant.

But the use of lethal force against US citizens, even outside the US, is limited by the stated US policy (as reflected in the DOJ white paper) to circumstances when capture isn't feasible, and as you note, capture virtually always is feasible (or at least an attempt at capture is feasible) when dealing with a US citizen in US citizen (and is always feasible when dealing with someone sitting at a restuarant having a meal as Paul suggested several times as a possible scenario). I say "virtually" always, because there might well be an extraordinary circumstance when capture isn't feasible -- a 9/11 type scenario for example.

So I'm not sure what it is that you don't accept that I'm saying -- or, for that matter, what the administration is saying. You agree that lethal force can be used, even against US citizens, in some circumstances. You agree that it shouldn't be used when capture is feasible and capture is almost always feasible. That's the administration's position as spelled out in the DOJ White Paper and in Holder's letter. Additional information apparently was provided that elaborates on these documents. If you know of something specific in that documentation that contradicts the points made by the DOJ and Holder, please point it out and, if you could, explain why Ron Wyden was satisfied by whatever else was provided.

He says he will vote for Brennan, but agrees with Paul on the drone issues.

Then its just a sad display.

Talking about domestic drones. Making a lot of sense.

agree with a lot of what he is saying

Paulite flypaper

Sid

and makes a lot of good points.

We won't have to worry about him ever getting the republican nomination.

You stand with George W. Bush.

Principal before party. I think Paul is wrong on just about everything but when it comes to civil liberties there are few in either party willing to stand up for them. We lost our champion when Feingold was taken down.

N/T

they said all of DC knows brennan will get the job.

who gets dazzled by the fool.

I mean, isn't this proof that filibuster reform isn't needed?

Paul voted against the mild filibuster that passed the Senate.

And he joined the filibuster of the Democratic sequester replacement.

Making hundreds of thousands hungry or homeless: 'Brutal' or 'a pittance'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022457325

Costs me nothing toward his other causes, that I find repugnant, to be against drones and see the value in his actions today on this issue.

how ironic.

maybe if the violence against women was done by a drone????????

One doesn't expect everybody to agree on everything. And in general, we don't really expect most Democrats to agree with most Republicans on most issues.

But there are many issues where there are principles that really shouldn't have anything to do with party. Some examples surely include the need to invest in a failing infrastructure, and the concern about these secret drone attacks subject to no oversight whatsoever.

My problem is that even on these most obvious issues we can't even get people to stand together on principle.

Damn both parties. Rand Paul is the good guy today at least.

on everything except foreign policy.
The drone policy is wrong but I detest Rand Paul.

doesn't mean I support Mr. Pauls political agenda.
Simply stated, his comments on domestic drone strikes (which is all he has been speaking about for the last hour) should be welcomed.

And just like clockwork WYDEN JOINS!

is for Democrats to say "Hey, we agree with you. We'd like to join the filibuster."

Like his father, in Special orders, dealing with the Neocons...he is 1000% right on this.

Those defending this are either partisans, fools...or both.

That does not mean the Paul's are right all the time, far from it...but they are 1000% consistent in their views. And when it comes to things like this...they happen to be right.

Let the pillorying begin.

"Like his father, in Special orders, dealing with the Neocons...he is 1000% right on this. "

...right about: demagoguing a hypothetical issue? He's got teabagger Senators Lee and Cruz with him.

These people are bullshit artists. They don't give a shit about anything but scoring political points.

He damn sure doesn't give a shit about American lives.

Maybe Paul can jump on a real situation that isn't hypothetical and investigate this:

Revealed: Pentagon’s Link To Iraqi Torture Centers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022467502

I mean, if Benghazi is worth endless debate and hearings, shouldn't this warrant at least one?

In special orders in 2002 I take it. He was 1000% correct in his take down of the Bush administration.

The Paul's are stuck watches. They happen to be right twice a day...but boy when they are correct, they are.

Or are you blind enough not to understand that armed drones use in the US is a very dangerous step?

I am so glad I am not a partisan. But I can bet if those chickens came home to roost oh five years ago...you'd lead the outrage parade.

"You missed his father taking the neocon project appart In special orders in 2002 I take it. He was 1000% correct in his take down of the Bush administration."

...is a Republican enabling tool, a fraud.

I guess they being right every so often, it tends to be with civil rights, ranks you.

You know who should be doing that filibuster? Oh yes, Senator Rubin, or at least joining Paul

He happens to be correct on this...but I guess as long as reaches for authoritarian policies are done by "our guys" it is ok.

People like Jonathan Turtley are horrified at the lacksadical response. I am not surprised, partisans are predictable.

Clear?

That does not mean they are incorrect in this...clear?

Yes, he is a racist a-hole who happens to be right in being concerned over the civil rights violations.

Clear?

"That does not mean they are incorrect in this...clear?

Yes, he is a racist a-hole who happens to be right in being concerned over the civil rights violations. "

...that's simply lame. Let me repeat: He's demagoguing a hypothetical issue so no, that doesn't make him right.

He's a bullshit artist who doesn't give a shit about anything but scoring political points.

He doesn't give a shit about American lives.

My party, right or wrong

Should I quote Theodore Roosevelt on this? Or will that be against your sensibilities?

Oh yes, two strangely apropo here.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/theodorero169572.html#IXjqGXq1Lhkb6DlC.99

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/theodorero164291.html#olRVXRFjElBAE9eT.99

Some of us still have a moral center...and hypothetical tends to become real.

For which you are known.

You had a momentary lapse a few weeks back, but I see, it still is party before country with you.

That personal attack is one that cannot be tolerated, since the person being attacked cannot defend himself against it. There is no way to prove that one is not paid to post on DU. It's a charge that has been made against that poster many times, usually from people who inhabit a certain anti-DU website. Nobody has ever offered any evidence demonstrating it.

Please don't make that accusation, unless you have a cancelled check to prove it.

Feh!

Trust me, I know. I am shocked that more blue links were not provided.

"Any other stupid statement you'd like to make?"

...stop projecting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2468676

At this point it is very entertaining.

Are you sure you want to do that? Since there is no possible way for anyone to prove they are not paid to post, there is no way to defend against such a personal attack.

Or, perhaps you have some evidence of it? If so, please trot it out for us. Otherwise, please leave this bogus charge alone.

Neocons hate his stance on this issue, so it costs nothing to support him on it. This isn't going to help him with a presidential nom in 2016, because a goodly chunk of his base isn't with him on this issue, and in the general, an ENORMOUS chunk of the population would be against him on a BUNCH of issues.

This one issue won't make or break him.

This one issue could break *us* as people.

Let him Filibuster. More power to him. Good on him. Etc. Someone has to man the barricades on the 5th amendment, I don't much care who as long as they are competent in doing so.

Sid

Just my opinion, mind you...

In fact, I bet they'd support drone strikes.

They are right twice a day...it's that time of the day.

Shame, more than shame, on every Democrat who does not join in.

"And fuck every single apologist for fascism just because it comes from a Democrat. "

..."fuck every single apologist" for fucking Rand "Turkey" Paul.

Making hundreds of thousands hungry or homeless: 'Brutal' or 'a pittance'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022457325

Video: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/#50829264

Rachel Maddow Annihilates the Paranoid Delusions of Rand Paul
http://www.politicususa.com/rachel-maddow-annihilates-paranoid-delusions-rand-paul.html

Ron Wyden now joining Rand Paul's filibuster is one of those things you will have to deny or ignore or rationalize until it blows over.

Yet another personal attack on this DUer?

Widen does not surprise me btw

"Ron Wyden now joining Rand Paul's filibuster is one of those things you will have to deny or ignore or rationalize until it blows over."

...I know Ron Wyden cares about people a hell of a lot more than Rand Paul. Wyden also voted Brennan out of committee and plans to vote for him.

So you can make ignorant and oblivious claims about my "principles" from your self-righteous and perch.

so I guess you better add him to your list of people with an "utter lack of principles."

Wyden isn't trying to block the nomination. He's speaking his peace during the debate. When a cloture vote comes up, I'll be surprised if he isn't with the President.

"My understanding is that Wyden has stated he will vote to confirm Brennan"

...but Senator Wyden also made Holder's exact point in a recent statement.