Skip to main content

Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Jerry Moran filibuster on March 6, 2013.
Earlier today, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) launched a filibuster of John Brennan's nomination as CIA director, but Paul's filibuster wasn't the normal, silent filibuster that has debilitated the Senate since President Obama was elected. Instead, Paul began a talking filibuster aimed at challenging the Obama administration's policy on drone usage. Paul's filibuster has gotten him attention from the media and his colleagues, and as of now, four other senators—Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), and Ron Wyden (D-OR)—have joined him.

Now, I don't want to get carried away and romanticize Rand Paul. If there's one guy in America that I don't trust to protect American freedom, Paul (or any of his Republican fillibuddies, for that matter) could easily be the guy I'd pick—unless by American Freedom you mean the freedom to be a man with the power to tell everyone else in his community how to live.

That being said, this is what filibusters should be like: Annoying, but not debilitating and an effort to make a point over a matter of substance, not just a tactic to score partisan political points. This is a move made in the open, with full accountability—nothing secret, nothing hidden. If we're going to have filibusters, this is how they all should be.

Unfortunately, only one of Paul's co-filibusterers agrees with that. And yes, that would be the Democrat, Ron Wyden. Despite showing us how well a talking filibuster can work, the Republicans on the floor today all think they should have the right to silently obstruct the work of the senate, with no accountability whatsoever. That's a shame—and it's a shame that a handful of Democrats agreed with them when Democrats had the chance to reform the filibuster in January.

The good news is that the window for reform can be reopened. Please sign our petition urging Harry Reid to re-open the process of filibuster reform in the Senate.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed, we all know Brennan will be confirmed but (18+ / 0-)

    this is how a delay should work, not just a backroom phone call.

  •  I'd guess Cruz is in just to be an obstructionist (13+ / 0-)


    Nevertheless, I support this.

    Rand Paul's a wackjob, but IIRC him and the old man have both been pretty good about trying to keep the US out of unnecessary military action.

    I would like some answers about drones as well.

    It is more important to be a confident and articulate speaker than to know jack shit about anything.

    by VictorLaszlo on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:07:10 PM PST

  •  WTF Is Wyden Up To? (0+ / 0-)

    He's been a fine senator from my state for many years but I can't see this. Certainly not siding with Senator Sheepshead (R-KY). Doesn't like Brennan or what?!

    What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. King Henry, scene ii

    by TerryDarc on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:09:04 PM PST

    •  He says he will vote for Brennan, but wants more (12+ / 0-)

      transparency and has for a while.

    •  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."
        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 does Eric Holder.


        •  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:

              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-)


            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 ]

    •  As a (mostly) former constituent (7+ / 0-)

      (Living in CA now, but still own my house in PDX, Dad's living in it, I'll be back eventually...)

      I fully support what Wyden is doing. The use of drones to target US citizens ANYWHERE is a constitutional issue, not a partisan issue.

      And this is what a filibuster is supposed to be.

      "I like to go into Marshall Field's in Chicago just to see all the things there are in the world that I do not want." M. Madeleva, C.S.C.

      by paxpdx on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:30:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  These people know what's coming... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ....filibuster "reform". And they are getting in practice for obstructionism that requires a little more than just voting "No" and running off to the gym or cocktails. Or both.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:09:29 PM PST

    •  Here's an idea to thwart the filibuster (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      without having to change Rule 22 (the Senate rule governing the filibuster).

      From a comment on the Rule 22 blog:

      ... one could place a resolution continuing the rule in force (this would require help) and then table the motion by simple majority, then it would take a supermajority to take the thing off the table. In effect, those who wanted a supermajority for cloture, would have to obtain a supermajority to continue the rule for that session. John Quincy Adams, where are you when we need you!

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:16:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm so sick of petitions to Harry Reid. (9+ / 0-)

    Find some other way to waste your time.

    •  Point taken. I will add Nancy Pelosi, as well. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CriticallyDamped, NonnyO

      There are others, but space, and patience, is constraining.

      Acceleration is a thrill, but velocity gets you there

      by CarolinNJ on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:22:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Republicans and Democrats (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      betelgeux, NonnyO

      R: "Gimme your wallet!"
      D: "No"
      R: "Let's comprimise: Just gimme your lunch money"
      D: "OK"
      D (Later, while standing in the lunch line): "Wait a minute ..."

    •  I do not sign petitions (0+ / 0-)

      They don't read them or pay attention to them.

      I have better things to do in my old age.  I'm planning to live to age 100, only 33 years from now..., so I have better things to do with my time than waste it signing something that will be ignored by the president or Congress Critters.  They only listen to corporations or banks or Wall Street or PACs who give them money.

      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 07:28:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rand Paul is a spoiled child in a toy store. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penny GC, BachFan, 88kathy, Progressif

    I don't trust him on any topic, even the ones I think I agree with on the surface.  

  •  There must be something we are missing... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Just Bob

    ...If the White House leaned on Harry Reid, surly there would have been meaningful reform this past January.

    ...If ObamaCo knows that taking the house back is issue #1 in the next 18 months, surely they must also realize that 41 senators can not be allowed to obstruct nearly everything.

    ...We really have never had a good answer to why this has not already happened.

    "Want to make God laugh? ...tell him your plans." -- Randy Wayne White -- Shark River

    by Blue Shark on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:21:01 PM PST

  •  This is a big loser for Obama. (19+ / 0-)

    Paul et al are right (not right wing) about the cowardly, criminal and unconstitutional Drone war.

    Murdering people with remote control flying robots is as immoral a behavior as possible... whether it happens in Louisville of Waziristan.

    Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

    by olo on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:27:21 PM PST

    •  Partly agreed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      olo, progressivevoice

      I do think, though, that some of the Republican obstructionists here are right for the wrong reasons.

      Which, I guess, is better than their usual practice of being wrong for the wrong reasons.

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

      by TDDVandy on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:45:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We've done worse... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, Not A Bot, progressivevoice, NonnyO

      Cowardly I don't give a shit about.  If somebody needs to be killed, I'm just as happy to have it happen with our troops 3000 miles away as face-to-face.  Because sometimes the other guy shoots back, ya know?  But criminal and unconstitutional - yeah, those matter.  When we decide as a country to go killing people, the Constitution tells us how to do it.  Congress declares war, in accordance with those international treaties on the matter which we have ratified, and then the President carries out the conduct of the war as commander in chief.  Letting the President just decide who to kill whenever and wherever he wants is insane.

      But it's not the most immoral behavior possible.  Or even the most immoral thing that we've done.  Torture, rendition, hell, the whole criminal invasion of Iraq and its hundreds of thousands of casualties and millions displaced.  And that's just in the current "war" on terror.  Internment, Tuskeegee, smallpox, slavery.  Or how about that we're STILL at war with North Korea.

      "And the President of the United States - would be seated right here. I would be here. And he would be here. I would turn - and there he’d be. I could pet ‘im." - Lewis Black

      by libdevil on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:46:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cowardly I don't give a shit about. Bqhatevwr. (0+ / 0-)
        Cowardly I don't give a shit about.

        But some say back-shooting is worse than anything...
        Others say Kiddie Buggering Priests are the Slime.

        Whatever makes you sick.

        I become ill when I think about bankers & soldiers & priests & loggers &vulture capitalists & miners & authoritarians & royalty & slavery etc. etc..., not necessarily in that order

        Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

        by olo on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:11:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Millions killed are statistics, one killed is a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      progressivevoice, DSPS owl


      You may not have noticed we have been killing innocents with great abandon these last 10 years.

      guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

      by 88kathy on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:21:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is GREAT !!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yella dawg

    The Stand Up Filibusterer Rand Paul is now invoking Glenzilla!!!

    Glad I woke up today.

    Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

    by olo on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:34:39 PM PST

  •  Their Power is Stupid Policy by Administration (0+ / 0-)

    dead bodies in the idea cemetary that is part of all administrations.

  •  Good for you Rand Paul. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    olo, PhilK, evangeline135

    I don't agree with the point of the  filibuster, but at least he is really filibustering. Get up there and yap your crazy mouth off Rand.

  •  Keep Filibustering this guy! (11+ / 0-)

    The minute John Brennan passes through the senate it will mean that most of the Democratic party and especially Obama has endorsed the use of torture and questionable executive power to kill Americans without Due Process. It was bad enough not prosecuting those from the previous administration for doing this crap but now it's becoming business as usual in our government. Keep it up, Senators! Make people really think about this appointment and how detrimental it is to our country.

    "This site's unofficial motto used to be "more and better Democrats", but we've gradually evolved it to "better Democrats".- Kos,11/29/2011.

    by progressivevoice on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:39:22 PM PST

    •  I'm wondering if this is why Wyden joined in: (3+ / 0-)
      Wyden sharply criticized the use of Patriot Act, stating: "The fact is that anyone can read the plain text of the Patriot Act, and yet many members of Congress have no idea how the law is being secretly interpreted by the executive branch, because that interpretation is classified. It's almost as if there were two Patriot Acts, and many members of Congress have not read the one that matters. Our constituents, of course, are totally in the dark. Members of the public have no access to the secret legal interpretations, so they have no idea what their government believes the law actually means."
      •  They have different reasons. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DEMonrat ankle biter, TexDemAtty

        I think Wyden and Paul have sincere beliefs in constitutional protections. Libertarians like Paul tend to be good on civil liberties and awful on economics. Ted Cruz is a hack and wants press for being the Anti-Obama. No core beliefs whatsoever.

        "This site's unofficial motto used to be "more and better Democrats", but we've gradually evolved it to "better Democrats".- Kos,11/29/2011.

        by progressivevoice on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:07:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What makes you think anyone (2+ / 0-)

      Obama would nominate for CIA Director - if not Brennan, anyone else he would nominate - would not approve of the drone policy?  At least Brennan wants to turn the whole program over to the DOD.  And doing that guarantees at least a modicum of congressional oversight; the CIA is not accountable to anybody except the president as far as I can tell.  The agency is like the president's Pretorian Guard or Republican Guard or his own private international police force.

      Time to do away with the CIA.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:46:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It does not get better (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, corvo, DSPS owl

    if the American government or its branches at the state or local level bomb Americans using manned flying vehicles, as has been done.

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:42:08 PM PST

  •  Rand is a nut job, but on this he is right... (5+ / 0-)

    A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

    by falconer520 on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:45:11 PM PST

  •  Using the one time I agree with Rand Paul (3+ / 0-)

    on anything to push "filibuster reform" the Democrats don't want anyway is . . . well, surreal on so many levels.

  •  Paulestinians (6+ / 0-)

    First the Obama admin denied the extra judicial use of drones.

    Then they admitted the drones.

    Then they said they could use the drones anywhere in the world without impunity.

    Then they said they could kill Americans abroad with drones without due process.

    Now they say they can kill Americans at home with drones without due process.

    Obama is no protector of civil liberties.  And if you don't mind Obama's finger on the trigger with the authority to murder you because he decides you are a "terrorist," just wait until President Paul has his finger on the trigger.  I wonder how you will feel about it then.

  •  Is Toomy is the Biggest Dud in Congress? (0+ / 0-)

    This stiff is putting me to sleep.

    Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

    by olo on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 01:54:33 PM PST

  •  Falling to sleep?? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A drone will make your sleep eternal. You live in Wonderland!
    Go ask Alice!

  •  Drone strikes on Americans? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    progressivevoice, DSPS owl

    Sorry but I have to agree with these folks that this is way over the top and should be unconstitutional. I have no idea how Obama justifies this stuff. I rarely agree with RP but this time, he is right.

    Do facts matter anymore?

    by Sinan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:03:36 PM PST

  •  Don't Blame The Republicans! (2+ / 0-)

    "That's a shame—and it's a shame that a handful of Democrats agreed with them when Democrats had the chance to reform the filibuster in January."

    Don't blame the Republicans for the filibuster nonsense!  With a Majority Leader of the caliber of LBJ, for example, or Tip O'Neal in the House, the Democrats would have clipped the Republicans' wings in short order.  The Republicans are only seeing how far Harry Reid will let them push the outside of the envelope.  Nothing wrong with that!

  •  They usually blame the dog for their silent-but- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    deadly fillafarts.  Glad they are talking now.

    guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

    by 88kathy on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:06:34 PM PST

  •  Yup. He's Right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    One of the reasons I voted for Obama in 2008 was because I thought he would be better than Bush on civil liberties. In fact, he is far far worse.

  •  Not A Bad Idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    olo, progressivevoice

    "Paul began a talking filibuster aimed at challenging the Obama administration's policy on drone usage."

    Thank Heaven SOMEONE is talking about drones.  I have to say that drone usage isn't something that can be laid at the feet of the Republicans.  At least I don't recall ever hearing about drone use during the GWB administration.  Even Dick Cheney wasn't THAT sleazy or low-class.

  •  The very best thing about this, and I have to take (11+ / 0-)

    my metaphorical hat off to Sen Paul for putting it on display:

    A REAL filibuster is not just about the Senate and Senators.  A REAL filibuster is meant to get attention outside the hallowed halls to resonate with the people as well as with the People Who Think They Are The Only People Who Matter.

    The sllent filibusters are just back-room maneuvers beholden to and respecting of no one.

    So -- a pat on the back for the Senator from Kentucky, especially since Brennan makes my skin crawl and the casual use of remote killing makes my skin crawrl even more.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:14:38 PM PST

    •  Yes THIS is how the filibuster is supposed to work (0+ / 0-)

      CNN is covering it -- sort of:  
      TRENDING: Rand Paul's #filiblizzard filibuster

      Holder narrowed the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.

      "No," Holder replied.

      But he also said the government has no intention of carrying out drone strikes inside the United States. Echoing what he said in a letter to Paul, he called the possibility of domestic drone strikes "entirely hypothetical."

      Paul ... said he understands that due process doesn't apply to combat zones overseas.

      "But when people say, 'Oh, the battlefield's come to America' and 'the battlefield's everywhere,' 'the war is limitless in time and scope,' be worried, because your rights will not exist if you call America a battlefield for all time," the senator said.

      Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

      by Helpless on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 03:43:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  broken clocks & blind squirels :-) (0+ / 0-)
  •  Paul is Begging Obama to end His Filibuster. (0+ / 0-)


    For at least an hour RP has been saying Obama can "end this".
    Paul just wants O to look at his ring,,, He  doesn't have to kiss it.

    Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

    by olo on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:22:53 PM PST

  •  How does the NRA feel about drones? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    How is it I don't have the right to a drone, given his ludicrous take on the 2nd Amendment?

    Money doesn't talk it swears.

    by Coss on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:42:16 PM PST

  •  Why did Rand Paul start a talking filibuster? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I am left wondering if the rules have changed more than we think, if this guy felt the need to launch a legit talking filibuster. What's his motivation?

  •  How sad is it (0+ / 0-)

    that a republican is challenging a president on his secret rationale for his secret use of drones to kill Americans? Democrats? Crickets...

    •  If you re going to comment... (0+ / 0-)

      If you re going to comment on a thread, you should read that thread first.

      If you had read the thread you might have noticed many comments critical of Obama's drone war.

      However you clearly did not read the comments above so you are a Troll.

      Nuclear Reactor = Dirty Bomb

      by olo on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 03:45:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

        I didn't say one damned word about the comments here.  I was referring to Democrat politicians. The next time you feel like calling someone names please try and have an actual reason.

        Now I HAVE lamented the lack of outrage here before- but not in this comment. Because there is, comparatively speaking, near total silence HERE on the issue as well.

  •  It would be a lot more convincing if Randie was (0+ / 0-)

    filibustering and issue the he was actually talking about.

    What he is doing is just more of what the Repocons have been doing for the last four years, stalling the vote on Democrat's legislative proposals and stalling Obama's appointees.

    They are very effective at stoping the government from governing.  That is not laudable.

  •  So if a highjacking takes place, the plane is over (0+ / 0-)

    American soil and has Americans on board the president shouldn't be allowed to order a drone to blow that plane up?

    •  not exactly (0+ / 0-)

      Assuming they were trying to fly into a building or something, that would probably qualify as stopping an imminent threat, which everyone agrees is acceptable.  

      This question is actually about the "gray area" where someone's continued freedom itself is a threat to the country, but where we don't have any practical means to arrest or detain them.

    •  No. (0+ / 0-)

      1) If a passenger jet actually posed an imminent threat then shooting it down should be done by a human pilot flying an F16 who has closed with the plane and evaluated the situation --including signaling the plane to turn.
      A human pilot who can challenge unconstitutional orders from a President.

      2) I also think using unlikely, extreme events to justify policy is an invalid use of rhetoric -- akin to the ticking nuclear bomb that Alan Dershowitz used to justify torture.

      Anyone with experience in  intelligence operations -- which Alan does not have -- would know that Alan's scenario was unrealistic .  That compartmentation, cutouts , alias, and several other techniques are used to  limit the damage from such captures --and certainly would make torture of little use in the time critical situatiion that Alan posed.

      Alan also appears to have the lawyer's mindset that dishonesty is a valid tactic in argument.

      •  Why would you limit the options? And (0+ / 0-)

        the unlikely occurs, like hijackers taking over a plane and crashing it into a skyscraper in one of the most populated places on earth. If that plane can be stopped it's the president's responsibility to do so. The part of Holder's letter that every one seems to be freaking out about says

        "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," Holder wrote. "For example, the president could  conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001."
        Taking drones out of the tool box to address an immediate threat to the homeland is stupid. If the president can use an F-16 in a situation, he should be able to use a drone, a distinction without difference.
        •  It is NOT a distinction without a difference (0+ / 0-)

          Having human beings execute the orders --and giving human beings the right to challenge illegal orders by protecting those officers from retaliation -- is a fundamental protection of civil rights.  

          This is what really pisses me off about some Democrats -- they just as willing as the Nazis to create a fascist state in the name of doing good for the People --but they accept no responsibility whatsoever for ensuring that the power of that state is kept in check, that the government is managed in a responsible manner and that corruption and incompetence and criminality in high officials is severely punished.

          What ever happened to Senator Jon Corzine, by the way?
          And those $Billions?

        •  If Dick Cheney had claimed the right to kill (0+ / 0-)

          Americans on US soil with drones, we would have been
          raising holy hell.   So what makes it right if a Democrat does it?   There should be  a difference between the values of the Party and the values of the political hack.

  •  Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    1) WIRED points out that there are other aspects to this issue -- where is this country headed if we have a perpetual , Unending "war on terrorism"  with the Executive Branch demanding new powers each year and engaged in a continual erosion of Constitutional constraints, regardless of which party holds the office?

    2) WIRED also points out that Rand Paul is citing LEFTIST bloggers' concerns about civil rights.

    3) Homeland Security is already sounding the alarms about "domestic terrorists".   Using the Executive's definition, the Founding Fathers were "terrorists".

    4) The Founding Fathers fought a war in which 1/3 of the population supported the foreign invader and 1/3 were indifferent.   A war in which a smallpox pandemic raged and the economy was in tatters and people were going hungry.   A war in which a weak USA faced the threat of the Great Powers of Europe.

    YET even in those conditions, they wrote a Constitution that stated:

    a) "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

    Where is the "Rebellion" in the USA?  WHere is the foreign "invasion" that justifies suspension of habeas corpus?   Why does the most powerful nation on earth feel there is a threat which justifies scrapping the Bill of Rights?

    b) "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; "

    c) "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.  No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

    d) "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

    5) The problem is that America has become a nation of Cowards -- who would unquestioning elect a dictator if that dictator were to promise to be their surrogate father and protect them from even the slightest possibility of harm.

     Our democracy can not survive if we accept that 5 corrupt old men on the Supreme Court can destroy the Constitution with two-faced sophistry.

    THEY don't decide what the Constitution means --WE do.  And it is about time US citizens started to realize who our REAL enemies are.

  •  Next shoe to drop? Collateral damage? (0+ / 0-)

    So the drone not only gets the American citizen sitting at his dining room table eating dinner, but it also permissible to wack his family while we are at it? And, then his gas grill explodes to take out his neighbor as well. His neighbor's (insert any combustible material here) then explodes taking out the next neighbor in turn, etc., etc., etc.

    If you don't want to be kept in the dark and lathered with horse dung, stop acting like a mushroom.

    by nomorerepukes on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 06:07:48 PM PST

  •  wake me up when (0+ / 0-)

    Rand proposes repealing the AUMF, or anything else that would actually help end the foreverwar.

    the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

    by happymisanthropy on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 07:35:27 PM PST

  •  I support Rand Paul in this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Mr. Drone Strike Enhanced Interrogation ought to be scuttled. Rand Paul agrees, apparently to a sufficient degree to draw Americas attention to the matter in a dramatic fashion. +10 for Mr. Paul.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site