Rand Paul Filibuster

[Polk]

Are trying to tell me we do not use drones to kill people? I know that Obama wants to pretend no one knows about it, but that does not mean it does not exist.

Paul's claim is that Obama has drones up in the air just randomly bombing Billy Bob in the countryside.

No, his question is whether Obama thinks he has the authority to do so.

He does, and it's never been controversial until now. Bush's holding of American citizens as "enemy combatants" is built off of the same logic.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paul's claim is that Obama has drones up in the air just randomly bombing Billy Bob in the countryside.

No, his question is whether Obama thinks he has the authority to do so.

He does, and it's never been controversial until now. Bush's holding of American citizens as "enemy combatants" is built off of the same logic.

It's always been controversial, it's just louder at the moment. Regardless, we have people also siding with Holder's assessment saying that the answer is obviously no, they don't have that power. The fact that people agreeing with Holder disagree over what he's saying is the problem. We need an emphatic yes or no, not all this obfuscation.

 

[Polk]

No, his question is whether Obama thinks he has the authority to do so.

He does, and it's never been controversial until now. Bush's holding of American citizens as "enemy combatants" is built off of the same logic.

It's always been controversial, it's just louder at the moment. Regardless, we have people also siding with Holder's assessment saying that the answer is obviously no, they don't have that power. The fact that people agreeing with Holder disagree over what he's saying is the problem. We need an emphatic yes or no, not all this obfuscation.

I'll give Rand Paul (and libertarians such as yourself more generally) credit, but a lot of the people bitching about it now were completely okay with it when Bush was doing. Hell, they're the same people who where complaining in recent memory that "the ACLU runs the CIA" and that Obama was too soft on terrorism. Holder's statement simply refused to categorically rule something out. That's advisable, even if it's something we don't want to think about.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He does, and it's never been controversial until now. Bush's holding of American citizens as "enemy combatants" is built off of the same logic.

It's always been controversial, it's just louder at the moment. Regardless, we have people also siding with Holder's assessment saying that the answer is obviously no, they don't have that power. The fact that people agreeing with Holder disagree over what he's saying is the problem. We need an emphatic yes or no, not all this obfuscation.

I'll give Rand Paul (and libertarians such as yourself more generally) credit, but a lot of the people bitching about it now were completely okay with it when Bush was doing. Hell, they're the same people who where complaining in recent memory that "the ACLU runs the CIA" and that Obama was too soft on terrorism. Holder's statement simply refused to categorically rule something out. That's advisable, even if it's something we don't want to think about.

So by not ruling something out we have to conclude that the answer is yes, correct?

As to the rest of your point, I'd have to agree, and I think Glenn Greenwald put it best.

Bush-cheerleading conservatives who "stand with Rand" = Rand-mocking progressives who pretended to care about civil liberties under Bush

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/309659227184574464

 

[Polk]

Based on existing law, it would be a stretch to say the answer is no. The answer is clearly yes, but under a pretty narrow set of circumstances.

You're spot on about the hypocrisy point. I would note that I don't agree with the existing law and don't think this is something we should be doing, but the reality is it's something the administration does have the legal authority to do.

 

[Polk]

To think back to some of these earlier civil liberties issues, if you want something that is the closest to representing my thinking, read Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (plot summary: Congress can either suspend habeus or try terrorist suspects in regular court).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Based on existing law, it would be a stretch to say the answer is no. The answer is clearly yes, but under a pretty narrow set of circumstances.

You're spot on about the hypocrisy point. I would note that I don't agree with the existing law and don't think this is something we should be doing, but the reality is it's something the administration does have the legal authority to do.

Then I think they should state that they have the legal authority. This is an important issue, and I think we have a right to know where the administration comes down on it.

 

[Polk]

Based on existing law, it would be a stretch to say the answer is no. The answer is clearly yes, but under a pretty narrow set of circumstances.

You're spot on about the hypocrisy point. I would note that I don't agree with the existing law and don't think this is something we should be doing, but the reality is it's something the administration does have the legal authority to do.

Then I think they should state that they have the legal authority. This is an important issue, and I think we have a right to know where the administration comes down on it.

I think Holder's statement was as clear as it could possibly be on that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Based on existing law, it would be a stretch to say the answer is no. The answer is clearly yes, but under a pretty narrow set of circumstances.

You're spot on about the hypocrisy point. I would note that I don't agree with the existing law and don't think this is something we should be doing, but the reality is it's something the administration does have the legal authority to do.

Then I think they should state that they have the legal authority. This is an important issue, and I think we have a right to know where the administration comes down on it.

I think Holder's statement was as clear as it could possibly be on that.

Obviously it's not, because you're saying that the answer is obviously yes, and others who argue that Holder's answer was clear are saying that it was obviously no. The fact that we can have differing views on such a clear answer indicates that it wasn't clear at all.

 

[Polk]

Then I think they should state that they have the legal authority. This is an important issue, and I think we have a right to know where the administration comes down on it.

I think Holder's statement was as clear as it could possibly be on that.

Obviously it's not, because you're saying that the answer is obviously yes, and others who argue that Holder's answer was clear are saying that it was obviously no. The fact that we can have differing views on such a clear answer indicates that it wasn't clear at all.

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

He's clearly saying the authority exists under an extremely narrow set of circumstances.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think Holder's statement was as clear as it could possibly be on that.

Obviously it's not, because you're saying that the answer is obviously yes, and others who argue that Holder's answer was clear are saying that it was obviously no. The fact that we can have differing views on such a clear answer indicates that it wasn't clear at all.

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

He's clearly saying the authority exists under an extremely narrow set of circumstances.

Then why the disagreement? Doesn't the disagreement at least indicate that there could be a clearer answer?

 

[Polk]

The "disagreement" is a political issue so Republicans can scream about "Obama taking away our liberties".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The "disagreement" is a political issue so Republicans can scream about "Obama taking away our liberties".

No, no, not that part. I'm talking about the disagreement between you and others who agree that Holder's answer was clear. On this board there are people who argue that Holder's answer was obviously no. So that you and others who agree that Holder's answer was clear disagree over what he obviously said would seem to indicate that it wasn't clear at all.

 

[paulitician]

Shame on all Republicans and Democrats who didn't stand with him. They really should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[paulitician]

I mean, the Democrats obviously fully support this Dictatorship. But that's to be expected. The Dictator's their guy. The real tragedy is that so few Republicans are standing with Rand Paul. The Republican Party is in real trouble.

 

[mudwhistle]

Based on existing law, it would be a stretch to say the answer is no. The answer is clearly yes, but under a pretty narrow set of circumstances.

You're spot on about the hypocrisy point. I would note that I don't agree with the existing law and don't think this is something we should be doing, but the reality is it's something the administration does have the legal authority to do.

And the same people that remain silent feel that putting a wet towel over someone's face is called torture and is much worse than blowing wedding parties to bits.

 

[mudwhistle]

The "disagreement" is a political issue so Republicans can scream about "Obama taking away our liberties".

Deciding how much you can make and remain in his good graces isn't taking away our right to earn a living?

Grabbing private businesses and throwing out their CEOs isn't an affront to our liberties?

Deciding which laws he'll choose to enforce isn't a form of discrimination?

 

[Misty]

Rand was on rush today and he has invigorated the republican party. He has breathed new life in a dying party.

 

[Misty]

I mean, the Democrats obviously fully support this Dictatorship. But that's to be expected. The Dictator's their guy. The real tragedy is that so few Republicans are standing with Rand Paul. The Republican Party is in real trouble.

The old relics are pussies. Rand is starting a movement toward a modern republican party. One that is really for smaller government. A government that follows the constitution and rewards success.

 

[paulitician]

I mean, the Democrats obviously fully support this Dictatorship. But that's to be expected. The Dictator's their guy. The real tragedy is that so few Republicans are standing with Rand Paul. The Republican Party is in real trouble.

The old relics are pussies. Rand is starting a movement toward a modern republican party. One that is really for smaller government. A government that follows the constitution and rewards success.

Well said. Thanks.