AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

Paul mounts Senate filibuster of Obama's CIA nominee over drone concerns

posted 3/6/2013 6:44:03 PM |
2 kudosgive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
tagged: politics, news, straddle, government
  StraddleMyNose

Lets hear it for Rand Paul!!!

Business 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, 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.

“To allow one man to accuse you in secret -- you never get notified you've been accused,” Paul said on the floor. “Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?”

Paul said he’d be raising the same complaints under a Republican president.

“No one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country,” he said.

The senator, speaking for hours, was later joined by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, as well as fellow Republican senators -- all of whom dragged out the fillibuster by asking Paul lengthy and drawn-out questions. That tactic allowed Paul to take brief breaks before resuming his speech, which continued into the evening. As of 6 p.m., Paul was still talking on the Senate floor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid briefly interrupted to ask Paul if he planned to allow a vote to end debate. When Paul said he wouldn't, Reid concluded that other senators should acknowledge that their work for the day is "through" and plan to come back Thursday.

Paul, who started speaking shortly before noon, said he will filibuster Brennan's nomination “until I can no longer speak,” though he later suggested he would back down if he received a written assurance from Attorney General Eric Holder that the administration would not carry out drone strikes on noncombatant Americans.

This kind of filibuster is rare – typically, senators “filibuster” by refusing to grant the majority the 60 votes needed to proceed to a final vote on certain bills.

Paul, though, said he wanted to raise the “alarm” about the drone issue.

He spoke after receiving letters from Holder on drone authority.

In one letter, Holder said the U.S. has never carried out a drone strike against one of its citizens on American soil, and called a situation where such a strike may occur "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."

However, Holder did not entirely rule out that such a scenario may occur in the future, and indicated that such a strike would be legal under the Constitution.

“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 said.

Holder said "catastrophic" attacks such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor are examples of circumstances where the president could conceivably feel such an action is necessary.

Testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Holder agreed that it would be unconstitutional to use a drone on American soil against a U.S. citizen and suspected terrorist who did not pose an imminent threat.

Brennan has been a staunch supporter of the administration’s drone program. But, after members of the Senate Intelligence Committee extracted key documents on the program from the administration, the panel on Tuesday voted 12-3 to approve the nomination.

Senate leaders were hoping to hold a floor vote on the nomination as early as Wednesday.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/sen-paul-holds-floor-for-hours-in-filibuster-cia-nominee-over-drone-concerns/#ixzz2Mo2X5TdB

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by StraddleMyNose:
Bronze Statue
Weird lizard hair
The BIBLE
What's the worst Christmas movie you have watched?
The best sandwich maker
Rapist!
Bill would ban buying of alcohol after a DUI
In South Dakota, teachers could now carry firearms
Obama considers intervening in gay marriage case
Who was/is your favorite WWE or the former WWF wrestler?
WWE Says William Moody, Aka Paul Bearer, Has Died
Do you believe in ghosts and/or space aliens?
Paul mounts Senate filibuster of Obama's CIA nominee over drone concerns
Valerie Harper, TV icon, diagnosed with terminal brain cancer
What classic or average movie would YOU remake?
Hugo Chavez dead!
Who watched the premier of All-Star Celebrity Apprentice last night?
Rodman's trip to North Korea
1st Photo of Alien Planet Forming Snapped by Telescope
'Gallon Smashing' Prank Videos a Hit but Raise Legal Concerns
Bonnie Franklin dead at 69
General Hospital's 50th anniversary
Now this I can get used to...
Must be the first of the month at Walmart...
Women do not...


Comments:

post a comment!

Wordsofwit

Mar 6 @ 10:18PM  
Lets hear it for Rand Paul!!!



I'll give him credit for standing by his principles, but it is time for politicians to put that aside and do what is right under the the circumstances for the benefit of the politically polarized nation. What he is doing is disrupting without realistic, viable solutions. People like him a part of the problem

The people spoke in the last election and it is a divided nation, but a decidedly moderate electorate. Anyone too far to the left or right is out of the mainstream.

Those like Paul are the obstinate people who, in the name of principle, kept us in this mess today six years after the Great Recession began by failing to lead us out of it
StraddleMyNose

Mar 6 @ 10:29PM  
Obama and his people are very radical to the left!

So, I guess you're in favor of taking out one of our own citizens on our own soil without due process, even if that person may be innocent...

Obama doesn't like our constitution. That much has been very evident over the last few years.
RJ53

Mar 7 @ 3:24AM  
Obama and his people are very radical to the left!


Actually he is pretty middle of the road and the only reason he seems left wing in comparison to the Republicans is that they moved so far to the right trying to appeal to the tea party that they were the ones who became radicals, I wish he were more to the left on some things but unfortunately he likes to reason with the uneasonable,
RJ53

Mar 7 @ 3:25AM  
oops that should have been unreasonable, The r key is sticking,
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 6:37AM  
No, Rhonda, Obama has been a radical leftish socialist most if not all of his life.

The fact that you think Obama likes to reason is a joke. There is no reasoning with this guy. It's his way or the highway.

He lies constantly!
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 10:19AM  
The Presidents responsibility to this country is vast, and one of those responsibilities is the safety of the citizens of this country, and that means protecting us from inside threats as well as outside.

This whole notion that the President makes the sole decision to use drones, is false. The decision making process takes many people, many hearings, and presentation of tangible evidence before any such drastic action is taken. Drone strikes against the enemy or enemy combatants doesn't fall under the civilian system, it falls under the military system, and they follow a different set of rules aimed at protecting this country.

Did Rand Paul stand up and tell President Bush "no" when Bush had the order out shortly after 9/11 to have military jets go after civilian air craft flying in restricted areas with the order to shoot them down if they don't cooperate? I don't remember Rand Paul saying anything about due process in that situation.

To use any kind of military force is a decision not come to lightly. Why do you all think it took a couple of weeks before Bush retaliated after 9/11? He had to make double damn sure of his information before even giving that order. And that is the same as what we are talking about here....Obama has to be double damn sure before giving any drone strike order. And that means he has to have the information, and he has to go through the same channels Bush did, before doing anything.

Anyone out there saying that any President can just make the order without "due process" is crying wolf. There is a process they have to go through, and it applies to any sitting President. If any President is to abuse their power, Congress has the authority to have that President removed.

StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 1:24PM  
This whole notion that the President makes the sole decision to use drones, is false. The decision making process takes many people, many hearings, and presentation of tangible evidence before any such drastic action is taken. Drone strikes against the enemy or enemy combatants doesn't fall under the civilian system, it falls under the military system, and they follow a different set of rules aimed at protecting this country.


No, Dawn, I don't believe that one bit. From what I saw of Holder's hearing where he wouldn't come right on out and say it and side stepped the question (surprise surprise), that spoke volumes. Yes, our country protects our citizens, but this can make almost everyone of us as targets even without a lot of evidence.

Who Obama consideres an "enemy" of this country, well, I have no confidence in that area with him condsidering what I have seen with him over the past 4 years.

Anyone out there saying that any President can just make the order without "due process" is crying wolf.
It has raised so many questions after Rand Paul first contacted Holder and the white house about this, and certainly called attention to this after what Holder said and didn't say to him. Hearing the response myself from Holder, I was left thinking the same in regards to using drones on our citizens without any hardcore evidence, and without due process.

And if you want to talk about someone crying wolf, lets talk about Obama having been going around the last few weeks fear mongering about the sequester, and what would happen with the cuts, and who would be effected right when it took effect. And on top of that, the sequester came from both Obama and Lew. He lies just about every time he opens his mouth. The little idiot has never earned a penny other than in the public sector (not private) in his life, and yet he loves to spend everyone elses money!
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 2:25PM  
Testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Holder agreed that it would be unconstitutional to use a drone on American soil against a U.S. citizen and suspected terrorist who did not pose an imminent threat.

That is from your own article you posted on this blog.

Yes, Holder did say; “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 said.

He is speaking in hypothetical. And, Article II in the U.S. Constitution does give the President the authority to act.

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Article II Section 2


I remember those who couldn't stand Bush making about the same claims with his order that any privately owned airplane or commercial air liner flying in restricted air space will be shot down if fighter pilots requests for information are not answered after the 9/11 attacks. People were saying Bush didn't have the right to deny people their rights to due process then. And they were mad about him giving such an order that could cause the deaths of innocent people on those planes because a pilot may not respond "in time". So, if I go by what I'm reading now, then that means that Bush didn't have the right to make that decision either.
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 3:08PM  
I remember those who couldn't stand Bush making about the same claims with his order that any privately owned airplane or commercial air liner flying in restricted air space will be shot down if fighter pilots requests for information are not answered after the 9/11 attacks. People were saying Bush didn't have the right to deny people their rights to due process then.

You're using a poor example. Catching an American terrorist in action is one thing, but thinking an American may be a terrorist without really any evidence when this person may be going about their own business without currently harming anyone is another.

I have seen enough of Holder and Obama to know what we're dealing with here. Having followed this, I trust my own perception.
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 3:23PM  
As for Brennan, he's not the right fit for the CIA. I don't want to see him approved by the senate.

This would be worse than Kerry's appointment to the Secretary of State post, and I thought that was a piss poor choice.
Wordsofwit

Mar 7 @ 3:24PM  
I am going to copy this complete thread and send it to the president!!!

Then you'll have to constantly keep looking to the sky for very small airplanes
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 3:30PM  
Cute, Wow.

But someone who has voted for this little twit not once but twice can't be paying too much attention to what's been currently going on. Your source of information (CNN) is not up to par, my friend.
Wordsofwit

Mar 7 @ 3:34PM  
Here is an update on this.

It reads in part:

Rand Paul 'happy' with drone response, ready to allow vote

Posted by
CNN Political Unit
(CNN) – In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash, Sen. Rand Paul said Thursday said he would no longer block a vote on the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director–clearing the way for a final Senate vote as early as this afternoon–now that he's received an answer from the Obama administration about his question on drones.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Paul Thursday afternoon that the president does not have the authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil.
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 3:37PM  
No, what I'm saying is that I've heard this same song and dance from those who didn't like Bush about the "order to shoot" after 9/11 as what I'm hearing now. The left said the same thing, Bush doesn't have the right to make that decision.

The President, whether you like the person or not, has a duty to protect the people of this country from threats by those who seek to do us harm. Methods questionable? Of course, but then again, we don't have the same access to classified information that they do.

Again, like I said, I've heard this song and dance when Bush had his "order to shoot" after the 9/11 attacks, and it's no different with what I'm hearing now.

Now this Brennan guy, yeah, there must be something there to make Paul do a filibuster that is rarely ever done. So yeah, people need to take notice. Could be legit, could be posturing. But I'm one to think if a person is going to stand on his/her feet for over 12 hours talking, then there is something to take notice on, and maybe more looking into this person's history is in order.

StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 3:38PM  
Only after the fact, WoW.

This drew too much attention and criticism to allow them to do what they wanted to do in the first place.
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 3:43PM  
Well, as I stated, Dawn, that's not exactly the same thing. A terrorist attack going down compared to suspecting of someone who may or may not be an enemy to the USA without any core evidence whatsoever.

The left is known for crying foul on almost anything and everything. Hell, Bush is still talked about and blamed today still by the left.
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 3:45PM  
This would be worse than Kerry's appointment to the Secretary of State post, and I thought that was a piss poor choice.

Yeah, I don't like John Kerry. Just something about him doesn't sit well with me. I just can't get behind him.

I feel Obama could have made a better choice than Kerry.
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 3:54PM  
Looks like Brennan just got approved!
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 3:56PM  

The left is known for crying foul on almost anything and everything. Hell, Bush is still talked about and blamed today still by the left.


The right is known for crying foul on almost anything and everything. Hell, Clinton is still talked about and blamed today still by the right.

And this is why I try to stay away from partisan discussion. I can see that both sides are screw ups. Neither is better than the other. Which is why both sides need each other to keep balance. One over the other having total control would not be good.

I gave up the 100% support of one party over the other about 13 years ago. I go with what I see going on in the country, and I go by who I feel is the better choice, regardless of which party they are with. The guy who is Governor here in Michigan is the guy I voted for. And there was a reason for it, he put out there what his plan was, stuck to discussion on it through his campaign despite the efforts of his opponent to distract him with attack ads. And so far, I feel he's done ok, a couple of things I didn't agree with, but, overall, he must be doing something right because Michigan is finally starting to turn around. It's slow, but it's happening.
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 4:34PM  
Dawn what is the right saying about Clinton today?

I don't hear a lot about him other than his dislike for Obama, and his campaigning for Obama in 2012.
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 4:57PM  
I thought I had that quoted, sorry.

No, it was an example of what I'm saying. That for whatever the right says about the left, the left says the same thing about the right.

Economy: I've seen people say Clinton's NAFTA was the downfall. Hell, I've even seen people claim Clinton never had a surplus. Even though I remember 2 press conferences where he discussed having surpluses.

Bin Laden: I've seen people on the right say that Clinton did "nothing" to get Bin Laden, that 9/11 was Clinton's fault. When the Towers were bombed in 93 (?), Clinton went after those responsible for it...anyone remember The Blind Sheik? Yeah, he was one who was part of that plot, along with some others that Clinton caught and had put to trial. In fact, they are still in prison. Clinton left information on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda when he left office. So, to say he did "nothing" is total b.s.

And, as to 9/11......I've said it before when the accusations were flying that Bush ignored what Clinton left, or (and this isn't from the right) I had heard that it wouldn't have happened if Gore were elected. (I know...FARFETCHED!! Had to laugh at that one) Anyway, regardless of who got elected, 9/11 was something that had been planned for years, and was going to happen regardless of who won in 2000. Blaming Clinton or Bush for it was total bullshit.

As I have pointed out before, I don't do the whole "taking sides" thing with politics. I look at all parties equally, and I acknowledge that they all have good about them as well as bad. I'm not a "die hard" supporter of either side, and have no problem with those who choose to support one side over the other. It's a good way to get a lot of information watching both sides discussing things. Until the insults start flying, then I just tune it out. Once the insults fly, all reason is gone.
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 5:12PM  
I rarely talk about Clinton today, but since you brought him up and stated some history that went down, I will tell you that I know of 3 different times that Clinton was offered up OBL, and Clinton refused. One was from the country Saudi Arabia. Missed opportunities indeed.
Wordsofwit

Mar 7 @ 5:18PM  
I rarely talk about Clinton today, but since you brought him up and stated some history that went down, I will tell you that I know of 3 different times that Clinton was offered up OBL, and Clinton refused. One was from the country Saudi Arabia. Missed opportunities indeed.

Hindsight is better than foresight. Bush had the same info. in his first nine months as prez and didn't do anything either. I fault neither man in this instance
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 5:23PM  
Clinton link

LA Times back in 2001
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 5:29PM  
I agree with Bruce, Clinton and Bush both had opportunity and both of them dropped the ball.

I know you don't like Obama, and I'm fine with that, but, Obama got Bin Laden and still caught hell from the right about it.

Much like Bush caught hell from the left about doing what the Secret Service told him to do with getting on board Air Force One when the 9/11 attacks were going on.

As the saying goes: "damned if they do and damned if they don't". Detractors will always find a reason to criticize those they don't like.

StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 5:35PM  
Here's a pretty good one

I agree with Bruce
Yeah, you would, wouldn't you?
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 5:39PM  
Detractors will always find a reason to criticize those they don't like
Hey, you made the claim that Clinton wasn't to blame and that Republicans cry this and that that aren't true.

Just telling you about what I had heard and witnessed at that time, and provided some links from that time.
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 5:45PM  
Yeah, I did agree with Bruce, both Clinton and Bush dropped the ball on their chances to get Bin Laden. That is common knowledge.

And it appears you are missing the whole point of my discussion:

I tried to point out that both sides have those who do not agree. Myself, I could give a flying fuck about either party. Why? Because both parties are nothing more than high paid whores to their lobbyists.

StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 5:56PM  
No, Dawn, I'm not missing the point at all to what you're saying. I'm not that into Bush. He certainly had his faults. He was too moderate for my liking. He did help run up the debt on us. If anything was his true strength however, that would be leadership. He certainly could have done a better job with the two wars we had going, but at least we weren't attacked after 911 on our own soil. Countries may have not liked us, but at least we were respected around the world than we are now.

Sure, both Clinton and Bush had their faults, but sometimes you make statements like it wasn't Clinton's fault with what the right claims from that time about him. You do act like he's some kind of Angel or something, and I'm here to tell you that he wasn't.
Wordsofwit

Mar 7 @ 6:04PM  
Brennan confirmed. Normally, tradition allows the president to choose his cabinet. Where there can be contention, and rightfully so, is in Supreme Court appointees as that is a lifetime appointment.
StraddleMyNose

Mar 7 @ 6:12PM  
Yes, Bruce, I announced that a little over 2 hours ago about brennan being approved
sugarnspice005

Mar 7 @ 6:43PM  
Sure, both Clinton and Bush had their faults, but sometimes you make statements like it wasn't Clinton's fault with what the right claims from that time about him. You do act like he's some kind of Angel or something, and I'm here to tell you that he wasn't.

Clinton? An angel? Bill Clinton?




Not even a die hard Clinton supporter would call him an angel!!!!


Oh, don't get me wrong, I liked him as a President, somewhat, but I wasn't blind to his many flaws, especially the one where he has a problem keeping his pants up.

No, I do not try to "defend" Clinton, I like to point out that while there are those (not you) who to this day will still blame him for this countries woes, yet, jump up and down bitching that the left always blames Bush and shouldn't because he's been out of office.

Well? Hasn't Clinton been out of office longer than Bush? So, why should those on the right keep blaming Clinton but yet cry foul if the left throws it back by blaming Bush? That's my point.


As for Obama...I don't look to him as any "great savior" like people on the right like to claim. I see him as any other politician, he will wheel and deal just like the rest of them to get his way. I also don't see him as this "great divider" either. Others see it differently.


Bush wasn't my favorite either, and yes, I agree, he could have handled the two wars better, in fact, he should have stayed on Bin Laden's ass more instead of going after Hussein like he did. Not saying he shouldn't have gone after Hussein, just saying he should have stayed more focused on Bin Laden.

Oh, and for the record, 04 election, I voted for Bush because I didn't like Kerry. So, there you go. I don't always vote Democrat. And like I said earlier, look at who Michigan's Governor is right now, I voted for him also. And I also vote for Dave Camp as my Rep. You can look him up on your own.

I don't support one party over the other. My main concern is America, and who can best lead, bottom line. The rest is all pompous foolishness as far as I'm concerned.
Wordsofwit

Mar 7 @ 8:22PM  
Bush wasn't my favorite either, and yes, I agree, he could have handled the two wars better, in fact, he should have stayed on Bin Laden's ass more instead of going after Hussein like he did.

Not saying he shouldn't have gone after Hussein, just saying he should have stayed more focused on Bin Laden.

for the first part. For the second. We invaded another country for no reason and derailed our credibility with many in the region. We spent a lot of American blood, resources, and money on a country that will never appreciate it or be anymore than it always has been

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2014 Online Singles, LLC.
OS-WEB01
Paul mounts Senate filibuster of Obama's CIA nominee over drone concerns