Rand Paul’s Filibuster
I applaud Senator Paul for being willing to really fight back against Obama’s willingness to kill Americans with drones with no due justice - a clear Constitutional violation. And to do it with an old-school filibuster instead of the lazy faux filibusters of late was great.
But Paul’s performance clearly energized his colleagues and even he seemed invigorated as the night progressed. Paul, a tea party favorite and a Republican critic of President Barack Obama’s unmanned drone policy, started just before noon Wednesday by demanding the president or Attorney General Eric Holder issue a statement assuring that the aircraft would not be used in the United States to kill terrorism suspects who are U.S. citizens. He wasn’t picky about the format, saying at one point he’d be happy with a telegram or a Tweet.
But by the time he left the floor, he said he’d received no response.
Ron Paul is a very good Senator.
I think more Democrats should have been joining him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 0727 hrs
This is so stupid. The government doesn’t provide procedural due process in any other deadly force situation. A cop isn’t required to flag down a judge to hold a hearing before he shoots a nutjob waving a gun around in a shopping mall.
Substantive due process suffices in all other deadly force situaitons and I’m sure Rand Paul knows that. He’s just grandstanding and being an obstructionist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1033 hrs
A deadly force situatiion on the ground is not the same as a drone strike jason. The police officer deciding to use deadly force has rules, restrictions and ramifications to doing so. ROE is an important factor to any situation. More aptly put, is that a drone strike is more akin to a police officer walking up to your car for a traffic stop and shooting you in the head. A better analogy would you walking from your car to the grocery store and having a sniper shoot you dead.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1119 hrs
One thing Rand Paul said that rings true to me. “Senator Obama would be standing up here with me.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1127 hrs
Of course it is, fish. Deadly force has rules, restrictions and ramifications whether it’s a cop or a drone doing the shooting.
If we can’t trust drone operators to act resonably and responsibly then we shouldn’t trust cops either, and this debate then becomes about government use of deadly force in general, not just with regard to drones. I don’t think we need to take it there because I don’t think most cops or drone operators (or presidents, for that matter) are stupid or crazy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1200 hrs
And yet oddly, none of these GOP senators supporting Sen. Paul seemed to have much of a problem when Bush was the guy in charge of the drone program. Sen. Paul wasn’t in office back then, so he’s off the hook. The rest of these cranks don’t have that excuse.
On the plus side, we get yet another day of hot GOP-on-GOP action where we get to watch the party fight with itself. That seems to be what the party does most effectively these days.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 07, 2013 at 1249 hrs
I’ve not read a ton on this topic, but found this quote from the DOJ’s memo on the policies:
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”
Pretty sure that wouldn’t remotely justify deadly force in other domestic situations. Seems this would be like having an unsubstantiated hunch that a guy was going to attack somebody at some point in the future & shooting him on the spot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1251 hrs
Sit down boys…With this one I agree with Rand Paul and Owen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1257 hrs
And yet oddly, none of these GOP senators supporting Sen. Paul seemed to have much of a problem when Bush was the guy in charge of the drone program.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I don’t recall Bush every using or approving of a policy of using drones in the US, on citizens.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1303 hrs
Actually agree with him on this one. Civil rights should definitely be #1 before anything else. Hopefully more politicians can stand by these rights instead of eroding them. *cough*Patriot Act, NDAA, CISPA & SOPA *cough*
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1306 hrs
The same people who got all hysterical for some prisoners wearing underwear on their heads are just fine with having Chicago Jesus blast the bitter clingers with hellfire missiles right here at home.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1400 hrs
“Pretty sure that wouldn’t remotely justify deadly force in other domestic situations.”
You’re absolutely right, Locke, but this isn’t a different domestic situation, it’s a very specific domestic situation. And my point was that there is a standard in place for drone strikes. It’s not the same as the standard in place for law enforcement use of deadly force, because that presents a very different scenario, but there is a standard. And if we trust cops with such a standard, why can’t we trust other actors the same way?
The white paper drone standard reminds me a great deal of the standard for injunctive relief in court. You need an imminent injury, but imminent doesn’t have to mean immediate, like tomorrow. And you need a specific injury, but it doesn’t have to be specifc down to the exact dollar amount at risk, or exactly where your ex-husband is going to stab you.
I don’t see a problem with using those same concepts of imminence and specificity in a 4th amendment context.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1507 hrs
Locke, you’re free to register your concerns with Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham. Also, you may wish to consult with the U.S. Attorney General, who similarly thinks your suggestion is bonkers. And Rand Paul agrees with Eric Holder, so it’s getting lonely over there if that’s what you believe.
Also, am I free to believe and suggest that the President has a policy of using armed unicorns to attack schoolkids unless I get a letter saying otherwise? I mean, seriously, where’s this nonsense stop with the lunatic fringe?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 07, 2013 at 1507 hrs
If you can produce an armed unicorn being used by the US government, and if you can produce a statement from the administration saying it would be constitutional to use an armed unicorn to attack schoolkids, then yes, you are you are free to believe. Unlike your scenario, however, the armed drones exist, as does a statement from the administration saying it is free to use them against Americans in the United States. Note that Pearl Harbor and 911, specifically referenced by Holder, were attacks by foreigners. Also, can that power be delegated?
Drones are unmanned and operated remotely, Jason. No drone operator is going to be firing to defend themselves as police would. Nor is a drone operator going to knock, or identify themselves, or ask you a question, or show you a badge, or tell you to drop your gun, or handcuff you…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1538 hrs
Right, BV, and there are all kinds of situations where cops don’t knock, identify, question or handcuff prior to using deadly force either, so what’s your point?
Do you think we need to eliminate the use of deadly force entirely? How can we trust a cop on a no-knock raid to do the right thing if we can’t trust a drone operator to do the right thing? What’s the difference?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1601 hrs
What the hell suggestion did I make that was bonkers?
Seriously man, I admitted right off that bat that & wasn’t very up on the whole thing, I’m talking it out. Not sure what’s ruffled your feathers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1607 hrs
It appears now that Holder has agreed with Paul, RS.
No knock raids are garbage, Jason. they don’t pass muster and shouldn’t be allowed.
Drones aren’t just being used in deadly force situations. They’re being used to whack people overseas. The operational guidelines ought to be different domestically or perhaps their use overseas use should be changed to conform to their acceptable use domestically.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1615 hrs
Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president’s campaign suggests he should’ve “had a more responsible father.”—This was about Robert Gibbs’ reaction the a 16 year old American citizen being killed with a drone. But we’re nuts for questioning whether Pharoah thinks he has the authority to do this here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1630 hrs
“No president has the right to say he is judge, jury and executioner,” Paul said.
-Spot on
Patriot Act, NDAA, CISPA & SOPA… Where does it end?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2013 at 1752 hrs
Eric Holder thought it was a good idea to send weapons to the Sinaloa drug cartel. Who cares what he thinks is “bonkers”. He should be in a prison cell in Matamoros.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2013 at 0830 hrs
It seems the party that has gotten it’s undies all in a bundle about making terrorists less than comfy with waterboarding are now all for assasination of citizens by it’s own govt. What comes around goes around and karma is a bitch. Just wait till a not liberal has hit lists for drone strikes and says sure it is alright to assasinate American citizens who we suspect might be up to no good. Heads will explode.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2013 at 0916 hrs
Most liberals would agree with what Rand Paul said in his Filibuster, but we probably would not agree with much else he has to say. It is often like that, for example I remember many progressives who agreed with Ron Paul’s foreign policy posiiton and his position on the Fed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2013 at 1810 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 38
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/23/2013 05:47 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).