• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Filibuster!

ANTPogo said:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...lder-drone-letter-to-sen-rand-paul-88572.html

Dear Senator Paul:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: “Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?” The answer to that question is no.

Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Good answer! I don't know why it took a month and a half and a 13 hour filibuster to get it out of him, but better late than never.

Update: Rand Paul said that the response is sufficient for him to drop his opposition to John Brennan's nomination.
 
ravdin said:
I disagree. It's a good thing to limit the president's powers. After all, he swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, which is pretty binding (assuming he takes it seriously). It's not a gotcha question to ask if he will abide by the Fifth Amendment in all circumstances at all times.
Click to expand...
First your own comment shows why the question isn't even necessary. Second, so he says yes, so what? Does that mean it won't ever happen? Maybe you've seen the discussions about the 2nd amendment recently. The Constitution isn't Moses' tablet and lightening doesn't strike dead those that dare mess with it.
 
ravdin said:
Good answer! I don't know why it took a month and a half and a 13 hour filibuster to get it out of him, but better late than never.

Update: Rand Paul said that the response is sufficient for him to drop his opposition to John Brennan's nomination.
Click to expand...

Well, I still do not see what the big deal is.

After all, it was always my understanding that Drone Strikes on American citizens on American soil would only be carried out if the person (or persons) in question were somehow engaged in making war/combat on America.

However, if Senator Paul needed more explict clarification, then good for him.
 
DavidJames said:
First your own comment shows why the question isn't even necessary. Second, so he says yes, so what? Does that mean it won't ever happen? Maybe you've seen the discussions about the 2nd amendment recently. The Constitution isn't Moses' tablet and lightening doesn't strike dead those that dare mess with it.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't see the last couple of posts. The administration finally responded in a straightforward way, in the negative. I am satisfied by the answer so I don't have anything further to add.
 
Crossbow said:
Well, I still do not see what the big deal is.

After all, it was always my understanding that Drone Strikes on American citizens on American soil would only be carried out if the person (or persons) in question were somehow engaged in making war/combat on America.

However, if Senator Paul needed more explict clarification, then good for him.
Click to expand...

The reason for the question was because of the administrations previous use of drones on American citizens abroad and the methods that they used to get around the legalities involved. They literally redefined the meaning of the word imminent so that they could claim that the individual was "somehow engaged in making war/combat on America" just by being alive. Even if he was nowhere near America, a weapon or even awake at the time.

For a non-citizen this is not a problem (under the rules of war all foreign enemies are the same and are always valid targets regardless of what they are doing at the time, with certain and limited exceptions such as hospitals) however for an American citizen it can be if he is the intended target of any type of lethal force. If the US Citizen killed was collateral damage (as in they weren't targeting him but instead intending to target the location that he happened to be in or even the person standing next to him) then it's legal and isn't an obstacle to the use of deadly force. If the individual is the sole or even the main reason for the application of deadly force then there is a problem, which was why they had to redefine what imminent meant to get around the issue.

They didn't write a memo or a white paper just for giggles, they knew that there were legal problems with doing what they intended to do. Notice that Holders response intentionally mentions "Engaged in combat" in his answer to the question. The drone attack on whats-his-name in Yemen was not while he was "Engaged in combat" as it is usually understood at the time of the attack on him (ETA) and he was the main reason for the attack on his location.
 
Last edited:
I think it is a mixture of Paul's sincere beliefs, and the knowledge this is a good way to attract Daddy's supporters and confirm him as heir to the throne of Libertopia.
And I am already seeing the same He Can Do No Wrong Worship that some people gave Daddy being given to Rand.....
 
ravdin said:
Good answer! I don't know why it took a month and a half and a 13 hour filibuster to get it out of him, but better late than never.
Click to expand...

I think most of us don't understand why Rand would have thought otherwise.
 
dudalb said:
I think it is a mixture of Paul's sincere beliefs, and the knowledge this is a good way to attract Daddy's supporters and confirm him as heir to the throne of Libertopia.
And I am already seeing the same He Can Do No Wrong Worship that some people gave Daddy being given to Rand.....
Click to expand...

There's always going to be a multivectored reason for most actions but this one - and on this my guess is as good as yours - I think the political angle you mention there is really just incidental and this is really a sincere position.

That said he did do some damage to that brand I think by bending to the Republican establishment more than the die-hard Paulites would have liked in recent years. I'm not sure even this is enough to win those guys over.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think most of us don't understand why Rand would have thought otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think that it's because of the leaked memo about targeting drone strikes on known US citizens abroad. Paul might have wanted a definitive assurance that that policy (and the legalities behind it) wasn't going to be used on US soil.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
There you go. Was that so hard to do? The only issue that I could possibly have with that answer is that it specifies Americans which could leave some wriggle room. Constitutional protections apply to anyone in a US jurisdiction regardless of citizenship. But that's just semantics when taken in context so I'll just drop it.
Click to expand...

It wasn't hard to do at all. In fact, the Hannity person was grilling his stooges (known as "correspondents" on Fox) on the topic, while they showed Holder saying quite clearly that they misunderstood because he was giving too nuanced an answer but that the answer is NO.... no. Unless there's a time warp in Thailand this was more than a day before Paul got up to filibuster.

Does anyone have an actual clock on how much time he actually spent standing and speaking? I know he ceded the floor for a question from a buddy, but don't know for how long (although the bud, I think it was Cruz, stood up to ask a question and had a noticeably thick sheaf of papers... I'm sure he gave Rand a nice break, but I wasn't clocking how long he "asked").

I'm in favor of the filibuster. I have no idea why some in this thread are interpreting it as having to do with Presidential appointments. It can be applied to anything, even stopping the appropriation of the land around the proposed Willett's Creek Dam. :p (BTW, Jeff Smith was one hour short of Strom's record.)
 
dudalb said:
I think it is a mixture of Paul's sincere beliefs, and the knowledge this is a good way to attract Daddy's supporters and confirm him as heir to the throne of Libertopia.
And I am already seeing the same He Can Do No Wrong Worship that some people gave Daddy being given to Rand.....
Click to expand...

This. Fox is trotting out Newt and the gang to slap the "renegades" on the back. Not just Rand, but those who stood by him and helped out. None are so blind as those who will not learn. They're determined that the demographics in 2008, er... 2012 in 2008 and 2012 were both anomalies and that they really just have to get their Tea Party message to the masses.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the GOP.... You control the house. Introduce a bill specifically limiting the powers of the POTUS to call in a hit on an American Citizen in the USA. Period. There is such a law already (18 USC 1385 - Posse Comitatus), but if you want a constitutional amendment, go for it. Better pass it now, though, 'cuz if it comes up when Jeb's in the White House, you'll get no backing from the other members of the GOP.
 
Foolmewunz said:
It wasn't hard to do at all. In fact, the Hannity person was grilling his stooges (known as "correspondents" on Fox) on the topic, while they showed Holder saying quite clearly that they misunderstood because he was giving too nuanced an answer but that the answer is NO.... no. Unless there's a time warp in Thailand this was more than a day before Paul got up to filibuster.

Does anyone have an actual clock on how much time he actually spent standing and speaking? I know he ceded the floor for a question from a buddy, but don't know for how long (although the bud, I think it was Cruz, stood up to ask a question and had a noticeably thick sheaf of papers... I'm sure he gave Rand a nice break, but I wasn't clocking how long he "asked").

I'm in favor of the filibuster. I have no idea why some in this thread are interpreting it as having to do with Presidential appointments. It can be applied to anything, even stopping the appropriation of the land around the proposed Willett's Creek Dam. :p (BTW, Jeff Smith was one hour short of Strom's record.)
Click to expand...

On the highlited part: I think that what set off Rand Paul was something that Holder had said a bit earlier in the day in some committee hearing but I could be wrong on that.

As far as filibuster length goes the entire filibuster is usually credited to one person. Even the longest filibuster (credited to Strom Thirman) was interspersed with comments from people that were given the floor who were *on his side so that he could sit down for a bit. The only rules that I know of for a proper filibuster is that the person talking has to be on their feet and that the person responsible for the filibuster cannot leave the chamber floor, not even to use the bathroom. There may be some other ones but those are the ones that I know of that place limits on it.

*they have to be on the side of the filibuster or if he gave them the floor they could stop the filibuster.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
On the highlited part: I think that what set off Rand Paul was something that Holder had said a bit earlier in the day in some committee hearing but I could be wrong on that.

As far as filibuster length goes the entire filibuster is usually credited to one person. Even the longest filibuster (credited to Strom Thirman) was interspersed with comments from people that were given the floor who were *on his side so that he could sit down for a bit. The only rules that I know of for a proper filibuster is that the person talking has to be on their feet and that the person responsible for the filibuster cannot leave the chamber floor, not even to use the bathroom. There may be some other ones but those are the ones that I know of that place limits on it.

*they have to be on the side of the filibuster or if he gave them the floor they could stop the filibuster.
Click to expand...

Actually, as long as he merely yields for a question, he gets the floor back, according to the Civics class I took at Frank Capra U. (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) It was a major part of the plot. If you yield for "a point of order", or a request for recess, the Speaker can then hand the floor over to anyone wishing to be heard. That's why the Cruz break was "a question". Rand got the floor back.

And I think it's obviously disingenuous of Paul to ignore the last part of Holder's testimony and jump on the front part. And, by the way, Holder had a good, if somewhat strained, point - they just wanted a Yes or No answer. His point was that there are circumstances, say 9/11, where a hit might have to be ordered, even if those were Americans flying those planes instead of foreign nationals. The other side of that argument, though, is that they'd have no way of knowing who was flying the planes, but then again, they certainly could surmise that ordering such a hit could be seen as striking US citizens, who were the passengers... He was trying to cover too much ground. When he realized the game that was afoot, he clearly said, "No". Rand seized on the earlier part, tied it into the CIA confirmation, and made political hay.

And, as I said, there is US Code to cover this. Aren't these the same folks who always decry passing new laws and orders and not enforcing the existing ones? It's a political play, and because I find the GOP primaries to be the most fun since Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling stopped airing, I hope the Ronulans all line up behind him.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
The reason for the question was because of the administrations previous use of drones on American citizens abroad and the methods that they used to get around the legalities involved. They literally redefined the meaning of the word imminent so that they could claim that the individual was "somehow engaged in making war/combat on America" just by being alive. Even if he was nowhere near America, a weapon or even awake at the time.

For a non-citizen this is not a problem (under the rules of war all foreign enemies are the same and are always valid targets regardless of what they are doing at the time, with certain and limited exceptions such as hospitals) however for an American citizen it can be if he is the intended target of any type of lethal force. If the US Citizen killed was collateral damage (as in they weren't targeting him but instead intending to target the location that he happened to be in or even the person standing next to him) then it's legal and isn't an obstacle to the use of deadly force. If the individual is the sole or even the main reason for the application of deadly force then there is a problem, which was why they had to redefine what imminent meant to get around the issue.

They didn't write a memo or a white paper just for giggles, they knew that there were legal problems with doing what they intended to do. Notice that Holders response intentionally mentions "Engaged in combat" in his answer to the question. The drone attack on whats-his-name in Yemen was not while he was "Engaged in combat" as it is usually understood at the time of the attack on him (ETA) and he was the main reason for the attack on his location.
Click to expand...

Thanks much, but I still fail to see how it relates to the question that Senator Paul made such a fuss about. After all, he was asking about the use of drones on American citizens on American soil, whereas the fellow you mentioned was in Yemen.

Therefore, his case does not relate to the question that Paul asked.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
I think that it's because of the leaked memo about targeting drone strikes on known US citizens abroad. Paul might have wanted a definitive assurance that that policy (and the legalities behind it) wasn't going to be used on US soil.
Click to expand...

The previous letter was just as definitive. Paul was looking for something to make a big deal. It makes for good govertainment.
 
Crossbow said:
Thanks much, but I still fail to see how it relates to the question that Senator Paul made such a fuss about. After all, he was asking about the use of drones on American citizens on American soil, whereas the fellow you mentioned was in Yemen.

Therefore, his case does not relate to the question that Paul asked.
Click to expand...

Actually it is relevant because the change in policy to include targeting and killing American citizens not on US soil suspected of being terrorists involved redefining the meaning of the word imminent into not-so-imminent in order to get around that pesky constitution. This begs the question of whether or not that redefinition also applies to US citizens on US soil as well. The original response was not crystal clear on that. The response after the filibuster was.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Actually it is relevant because the change in policy to include targeting and killing American citizens not on US soil suspected of being terrorists involved redefining the meaning of the word imminent into not-so-imminent in order to get around that pesky constitution. This begs the question of whether or not that redefinition also applies to US citizens on US soil as well. The original response was not crystal clear on that. The response after the filibuster was.
Click to expand...

Thanks much for your response, and I am sorry if I sound obstinate because I am not trying to be so.

However, this looks like another case of someone getting very twisted about a very small point.

I read the first letter (a few times now) that AG Holder sent to Senator Paul about his issue (http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf) and the issue was made very plain. The only time that weaponized drones would be used on American citizens who are on American soil would be if it there was really no other way to stop a major attack from occurring.

Therefore, there is really no difference between the first letter that Senator Paul got (which was the pretext for the fillibuster) and the second letter that Senator Paul got (which ended the fillibuster).

Accordingly, I think Senator Paul was simply doing a bit of grandstanding and/or self-promotion; both of which are perfectly acceptable behavior for any elected official.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom