• 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!

Dumb All Over

A Little Ugly on the Side
Dumb All Over
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
6,844
Location
They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name
Over two and a half hours ago, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul began a filibuster in the Senate in opposition to the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director and to unlawful drone strikes on American soil. He's still talking.

FILIBUSTER!


ETA: You can watch this live on C-SPAN 2.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
??? When was this, now?
Click to expand...

It hasn't, but I think that Eric Holder has made a statement that such is not completely out of the question, if the right (but extremely narrow) circumstances occur sometime in the future.

ETA: Being discussed in this thread
 
Last edited:
cwalner said:
It hasn't, but I think that Eric Holder has made a statement that such is not completely out of the question, if the right (but extremely narrow) circumstances occur sometime in the future.

ETA: Being discussed in this thread
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm in that discussion and just got done explaining how nobody is actually suggesting we would or should do that. Which, of course, gave me a moment of panic that we actually had done that.
 
Dumb All Over said:
Sorry, I don't follow.
Click to expand...
My point is that they have not ruled out doing drone strikes on Mars. Should we then assume that they are planning drone strikes on Mars? If not, then why should we assume that they are planning drone strikes on US soil?

Do they have to definitively rule out everything they won't do? Does not doing so positively suggest that they plan to do so?
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Yeah, I'm in that discussion and just got done explaining how nobody is actually suggesting we would or should do that. Which, of course, gave me a moment of panic that we actually had done that.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with you on your interpretation of Holder's statement.

However, we are talking about Rand Paul. I have no reason to doubt that he has interpreted that statement as authorizing drone strikes within US territory.

I just disagree with him classifying such strikes as 'unlawful' as holder's statment was that he could imagine a scenario, albeit completely far-fetched, in which such a strike could be done in accordance with the constitution and existing law (in other words lawful).

I happen to disagree with Holder's assertion, though. I cannot imagine a situation in which a terrorist was on US soil and standard boots on the ground law enforcement/national guard would not be available to make the capture, and would therefore require a drone strike.
 
Upchurch said:
My point is that they have not ruled out doing drone strikes on Mars. Should we then assume that they are planning drone strikes onn gMars? If not, then why should we assume that they are planning drone strikes on US soil?

Do they have to definitively rule out everything they won't do? Does not doing so positively suggest that they plan to do so?
Click to expand...

Had Eric Holder, when asked specific questions, ruled out U.S. soil strikes, perhaps Rand Paul would not be filibustering. Holder apparently did not do so according to Rand.
 
Last edited:
Dumb All Over said:
Had Eric Holder, when asked specific questions, ruled out U.S. soil strikes, perhaps Rand Paul would not be filibustering. Holder apparently did not do so according to Rand.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that was Eric Holder, the sitting AG that said that, not John Brennan, the one who's appointment to CIA director is being upheld by this filibuster.

This comes across as petulant obstructionism. Had Brennan made the statement, or even come out in support of it, then the filibuster of his appointment would make sense. As it is, it is nothing more than a temper tantrum.
 
At least he is actually talking his filibuster out... Any movement on that potential rule change to force filibusterers to actually, you know, filibuster - instead of just raising their hand to signal an intent to filibuster?
 
Praktik said:
At least he is actually talking his filibuster out... Any movement on that potential rule change to force filibusterers to actually, you know, filibuster - instead of just raising their hand to signal an intent to filibuster?
Click to expand...
Indeed. I don't care if I agree with the obstructionists or not, as long as they have to step up and really work at their obstruction.
 
cwalner said:
Yes, but that was Eric Holder, the sitting AG that said that, not John Brennan, the one who's appointment to CIA director is being upheld by this filibuster.

This comes across as petulant obstructionism. Had Brennan made the statement, or even come out in support of it, then the filibuster of his appointment would make sense. As it is, it is nothing more than a temper tantrum.
Click to expand...

The ACLU is apparently in agreement with the filibuster. In addition Bernnan was likely in the loop on the reason for the filibuster in his position of Deputy National Security Adviser so it's at least tangentially related.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/brennan-nomination-head-cia-raises-concerns

“The Senate should not move forward with his nomination until all senators can assess the role of the CIA — and any role by Brennan himself — in torture, abuse, secret prisons, and extraordinary rendition during his past tenure at the CIA, as well as can review the legal authorities for the targeted killing program that he has overseen in his current position,” Murphy said. “This nomination is too important to proceed without the Senate first knowing what happened during Brennan's tenures at the CIA and the White House, and whether all of his conduct was within the law.”
Click to expand...
 
Sam.I.Am said:
The ACLU is apparently in agreement with the filibuster. In addition Bernnan was likely in the loop on the reason for the filibuster in his position of Deputy National Security Adviser so it's at least tangentially related.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/brennan-nomination-head-cia-raises-concerns
Click to expand...

Thank's and all of those can be valid reasons to filibuster. However, the specific reference to drone strikes in the US seems more related to Holder's statements and as such has not yet actually happened, such was clearly never approved by Brennan in his role as NSA.

It still feels to me that this is more about recent stories regarding the lack of transparency in general regarding the drone programs than anything specific that Brennan may or may not have done involving that program.
 
cwalner said:
Thank's and all of those can be valid reasons to filibuster. However, the specific reference to drone strikes in the US seems more related to Holder's statements and as such has not yet actually happened, such was clearly never approved by Brennan in his role as NSA.

It still feels to me that this is more about recent stories regarding the lack of transparency in general regarding the drone programs than anything specific that Brennan may or may not have done involving that program.
Click to expand...

Well, like I said it was a tangential link. Holders comments and apparently (from listening to the filibuster) from what he said today in testimony when directly asked him if it was constitutional to apply the memo to someone sitting in a cafe' in Seattle or wherever and he didn't say that it wasn't even after being asked four times (again, from the filibuster so no links yet). That makes it more like a "Strike while the iron is hot" type of filibuster.
 
Babbylonian said:
Indeed. I don't care if I agree with the obstructionists or not, as long as they have to step up and really work at their obstruction.
Click to expand...

Thirded. I think he's a loon, but at least he's really filibustering. Like when Robert Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours.

Rand is reading from Alice in Wonderland now, where they get sentenced before they're tried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom