Skip to main content

View Diary: So it turns out a talking filibuster is actually pretty darn good idea after all (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Listening now. (9+ / 0-)

    Wyden's primary objection is that he doesn't feel Brennan has been sufficiently forthcoming on the use of force inside the US.

    •  Or maybe Brennan has been... (12+ / 0-)

      ...very forthcoming:

      "If a person is a U.S. citizen, and he is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq trying to attack our troops, he will face the full brunt of the U.S. military response," Mr. Brennan said. "If an American person or citizen is in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are trying to carry out attacks against U.S. interests, they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response. And it can take many forms."

      Mr. Brennan added, "To me, terrorists should not be able to hide behind their passports and their citizenship, and that includes U.S. citizens, whether they are overseas or whether they are here in the United States. What we need to do is to apply the appropriate tool and the appropriate response."

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/...
      June 24, 2010

      The only thing good that came out of Brennan's senate confirmation hearing is that he believes the Drone Program should be run by the Pentagon and not the CIA.  But he does believe that the administration has the legal authority to use drones on American citizens within the US if the president deems it necessary...so does Eric Holder.

      FILIBUSTER!

      •  Yeah. (4+ / 0-)

        I'm not sure where you get off denying terrorists in the United States due process, unless they are presenting an imminent danger (i.e. running into a building with a bomb strapped to his chest.)

        28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

        by TDDVandy on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:47:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not sure where you get off... (8+ / 0-)

          ...calling someone a terrorist before they've committed an act of terrorism.

          Are you saying that the FBI is incapable of handling domestic threats within the US?  We need the CIA and The Pentagon drone-bombing US citizens who haven't been charged with, let alone committed a crime?

          Welcome to Tienanmen Square, comrade.

          •  Ummm... okay. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4kedtongue

            Thank you for completely misreading the comment.

            What I actually said was that we should NOT be conducting drone strikes on supposed terrorists in the United States.  That would be why we have the justice system.

            But, hey, if you want to read that comment as being in favor of drone strikes in the United States, go ahead and continue being a dick to people who "disagree" with you and using red-baiting language normally seen on right-wing boards.

            28, white male, TX-26 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

            by TDDVandy on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:02:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If I misread your comment... (0+ / 0-)

              ...I apologize.  I thought it was sarcasm.

              However, I still take (slightly less) exception to the idea that only terrorists, the imminent variety or your run-of-the-mill planners / sympathizers have something to fear from the powers being justified by the Attorney General.  I mean, people are wrongly accused of crimes every day.

              Anyway, apologies if I misread your comment and my reply was extreme.

      •  McCarthy and his list were disturbing (6+ / 0-)

        How much more so when government has the ability to stuff a collateral-damage-free bomb down the chimneys of unconvicted "enemies" of the state?  The president, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Pentagon?  None of them should have the power to make decisions regarding the disposition of American citizens.  That's why we have courts.  

        Last time a president used his discretionary powers to decide on a large scale who might be dangerous to the state, a whole lot of Japanese Americans ended up in camps.  I don't trust any of those bastards (presidents, I mean, not Japanese Americans).  

        The wisdom of my forebears ... Two wise people will never agree. Man begins in dust and ends in dust — meanwhile it's good to drink some vodka. A man studies until he's seventy and dies a fool.

        by Not A Bot on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:19:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Does Nobody Else See What Total BS This Is? (7+ / 0-)

        I suppose today we would just assassinate Benedict Arnold because it's just too much effort to gather evidence of treason and convict him in a court of law.

        Essentially Brennan's response is: ""If a person is a U.S. citizen, and he is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq trying to attack our troops". But that is total B.S.

        It's a fake problem. OBVIOUSLY, if a guy is shooting at our troops he gets shot. Period.

        What we're dealing with here is more "aid and comfort to the enemy" -- where there's NO active "attacking our troops".

        Worse, there's no declared war, no declared enemy. No rule of law whatsoever.

        And that leaves the American citizen supposedly guilty of what?

        Treason? Well we have very explicit laws for how to deal with that. You arrest the citizen, and bring him to trial for treason. If he's in a foreign land you extradite him and then try him.

        And he's got all the rights that every citizen has, including habeas corpus.

        Men like Brennan do FAR more damage to our country than some poor deluded terrorist wanna-be ever could dream of!

        •  Nobody does, apparently (0+ / 0-)

          Sickening!

          I would say I was ashamed of my country but that might bring one of those missiles down my chimney.

          Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

          by Helpless on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 03:17:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why is Rachel Maddow... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DSPS owl

          ...singing this Brennan's praises then?

          She seems comfortable enough with his answers regarding which off-shoot of the executive branch should be in charge of carrying out Drone Attacks but sort of glosses over Brennan's belief that US citizenship or application of this power on US soil is A-Ok.

          I have real concerns about Brennan that aren't assuaged by a semantic difference of WHICH Dept. should wield this power.

        •  Ah, but we do NOT have habeas corpus (0+ / 0-)
          And he's got all the rights that every citizen has, including habeas corpus.
          MCA '06 & MCA '09 are still in effect.  That means NO habeas corpus rights for anyone.

          THAT is STILL illegal and unconstitutional..., as are Patriot Act & FISA fiasco '08, AUMF, and 'office of faith-based initiatives.'  All of them should have been repealed the first week Obama was in office during his first term.  Instead, before he was in office a week drones were dropping bombs in Pakistan, he's now claimed AUMF applies to him, too, which (he and his lawyers say) gives him authority to drop bombs from drones on anyone.

          It was illegal and unconstitutional when Dumbya was doing it, and it's STILL illegal and unconstitutional now that Obama's doing it.  One would think a con law prof would know better....

          See the videos I posted in joanneleon's excellent diary a short time ago.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 07:24:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site