Rand Paul is Filibustering John Brennan

[JakeStarkey]

darkwind is answered in #179 above.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your argument for judicial review is the straw man argument, because no Judge can give the OK for a President to use deadly force. Is the Judge going to hear both sides of that case?

It's not a straw man, it's a disagreement. Whereas you are focusing on a point that nobody is arguing.

Your whole argument doesn't make sense, because a citizen in this country isn't equal to a citizen spotted in Yemen, where the choices are to kill him on the spot or let him possibly escape, if the decision is not acted on immediately. Perhaps there could be some kind a review of who qualifies for that treatement, but there are people who are American citizens who should be taken dead or alive and if it's in a foreign country, dead is more likely to be effective.

If some nutcase has his hands on a nuclear trigger and a drone is the only way to take him out, then do it whether he's a citizen or not.

I'm not necessarily making an argument, per se. I'm asking a question. You're misrepresenting the question, and answering a different question. A nutcase with his hands on a nuclear trigger is an immediate threat, we're talking about people who are not an immediate threat.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The point is this: the President has the power until courts tell him he doesn't. And in terms of war powers and protection of the US, this particular issue is one the courts are going to ignore as much as possible.

Rand is merely asking what the President perceives his power to be on this question, regardless of his own position as to what the President's power is. That's the point.

Holder gave the admin's answer, and that is the end of it. Rand can speak until he drops, but eventually today or tomorrow the vote will be held, and Brennan will be affirmed.

What was the answer? Why are people who agree with Holder disagreeing over what Holder answered? Some say he answered yes, others say he answered no. How can that be if he answered the question clearly?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who have ears and will not hear are responsible for their own understanding.

In other words, that is your issue, not mine or the President's or anyone else for that matter.

Senator Patrick Leahy may vote against the nomination because he shares some of your concerns.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Those who have ears and will not hear are responsible for their own understanding.

In other words, that is your issue, not mine or the President's or anyone else for that matter.

Senator Patrick Leahy may vote against the nomination because he shares some of your concerns.

So you don't think it's an issue that people who agree Holder gave a clear answer, disagree over what that answer was? I think it's a problem, and Rand thinks it's a problem. You don't have to agree, naturally, but I think you can at least see that we have some point.

 

[Dubya]

It's not a straw man, it's a disagreement. Whereas you are focusing on a point that nobody is arguing.

Your whole argument doesn't make sense, because a citizen in this country isn't equal to a citizen spotted in Yemen, where the choices are to kill him on the spot or let him possibly escape, if the decision is not acted on immediately. Perhaps there could be some kind a review of who qualifies for that treatement, but there are people who are American citizens who should be taken dead or alive and if it's in a foreign country, dead is more likely to be effective.

If some nutcase has his hands on a nuclear trigger and a drone is the only way to take him out, then do it whether he's a citizen or not.

I'm not necessarily making an argument, per se. I'm asking a question. You're misrepresenting the question, and answering a different question. A nutcase with his hands on a nuclear trigger is an immediate threat, we're talking about people who are not an immediate threat.

If a person wasn't an immediate threat in the United States, they wouldn't be using deadly force, unless it was under some unusual circumstances. It's possible that such a targeted person could be a US citizen and only in the cross hairs for a moment in time. Being a US citizen shouldn't change the status of an enemy combatant to such a degree that their rights as a US citizen trump the war effort against them. I would say capture is always the best solution if possible, but sometimes it isn't going to be possible, even in America.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your whole argument doesn't make sense, because a citizen in this country isn't equal to a citizen spotted in Yemen, where the choices are to kill him on the spot or let him possibly escape, if the decision is not acted on immediately. Perhaps there could be some kind a review of who qualifies for that treatement, but there are people who are American citizens who should be taken dead or alive and if it's in a foreign country, dead is more likely to be effective.

If some nutcase has his hands on a nuclear trigger and a drone is the only way to take him out, then do it whether he's a citizen or not.

I'm not necessarily making an argument, per se. I'm asking a question. You're misrepresenting the question, and answering a different question. A nutcase with his hands on a nuclear trigger is an immediate threat, we're talking about people who are not an immediate threat.

If a person wasn't an immediate threat in the United States, they wouldn't be using deadly force, unless it was under some unusual circumstances. It's possible that such a targeted person could be a US citizen and only in the cross hairs for a moment in time. Being a US citizen shouldn't change the status of an enemy combatant to such a degree that their rights as a US citizen trump the war effort against them. I would say capture is always the best solution if possible, but sometimes it isn't going to be possible, even in America.

Anwar al-Awalki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. If he had been in America, rather than Yemen, all else being equal, would the administration have had the authority to still use lethal force against him?

 

[whitehall]

I stand with Rand on this issue. The much touted "most transparent administration in history" is tighter than a clam. Wasn't it Brennan that said that 16 year old boy born in Colorado "should have picked a different father" when he was executed along with his father and a friend on orders from president Hussein?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I stand with Rand on this issue. The much touted "most transparent administration in history" is tighter than a clam. Wasn't it Brennan that said that 16 year old boy born in Colorado "should have picked a different father" when he was executed along with his father and a friend on orders from president Hussein?

No, that was Robert Gibbs.

 

[Dubya]

I'm not necessarily making an argument, per se. I'm asking a question. You're misrepresenting the question, and answering a different question. A nutcase with his hands on a nuclear trigger is an immediate threat, we're talking about people who are not an immediate threat.

If a person wasn't an immediate threat in the United States, they wouldn't be using deadly force, unless it was under some unusual circumstances. It's possible that such a targeted person could be a US citizen and only in the cross hairs for a moment in time. Being a US citizen shouldn't change the status of an enemy combatant to such a degree that their rights as a US citizen trump the war effort against them. I would say capture is always the best solution if possible, but sometimes it isn't going to be possible, even in America.

Anwar al-Awalki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. If he had been in America, rather than Yemen, all else being equal, would the administration have had the authority to still use lethal force against him?

If he was found in America or anywhere and you could get to him, I'd say alive is better than dead. Dead people don't give out information. I can understand why certain targets may be considered better dead than alive, but that's too tough of a moral decision for me to make. There is logic in avoiding the acts of violence such a notorious prisoner, like Bin Laden, would generate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If a person wasn't an immediate threat in the United States, they wouldn't be using deadly force, unless it was under some unusual circumstances. It's possible that such a targeted person could be a US citizen and only in the cross hairs for a moment in time. Being a US citizen shouldn't change the status of an enemy combatant to such a degree that their rights as a US citizen trump the war effort against them. I would say capture is always the best solution if possible, but sometimes it isn't going to be possible, even in America.

Anwar al-Awalki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. If he had been in America, rather than Yemen, all else being equal, would the administration have had the authority to still use lethal force against him?

If he was found in America or anywhere and you could get to him, I'd say alive is better than dead. Dead people don't give out information. I can understand why certain targets may be considered better dead than alive, but that's too tough of a moral decision for me to make. There is logic in avoiding the acts of violence such a notorious prisoner, like Bin Laden, would generate.

Well all Rand is asking is what the administration's position on this issue is, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[Dubya]

Anwar al-Awalki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. If he had been in America, rather than Yemen, all else being equal, would the administration have had the authority to still use lethal force against him?

If he was found in America or anywhere and you could get to him, I'd say alive is better than dead. Dead people don't give out information. I can understand why certain targets may be considered better dead than alive, but that's too tough of a moral decision for me to make. There is logic in avoiding the acts of violence such a notorious prisoner, like Bin Laden, would generate.

Well all Rand is asking is what the administration's position on this issue is, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

The Senate has a recent history of wasting a lot of time and not getting things done.

I also have enough sense to know that people's opinions on what a President should be allowed to do are highly influenced by the President being Obama. Obama isn't going to be President forever and it would be stupid to put restrictions on the President that you wouldn't want for any President. I didn't like Bush, but I wouldn't have objected to him shooting an airliner down to protect the Capitol or WH.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If he was found in America or anywhere and you could get to him, I'd say alive is better than dead. Dead people don't give out information. I can understand why certain targets may be considered better dead than alive, but that's too tough of a moral decision for me to make. There is logic in avoiding the acts of violence such a notorious prisoner, like Bin Laden, would generate.

Well all Rand is asking is what the administration's position on this issue is, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

The Senate has a recent history of wasting a lot of time and not getting things done.

I also have enough sense to know that people's opinions on what a President should be allowed to do are highly influenced by the President being Obama. Obama isn't going to be President forever and it would be stupid to put restrictions on the President that you wouldn't want for any President. I didn't like Bush, but I wouldn't have objected to him shooting an airliner down to protect the Capitol or WH.

But is it a waste of time to ask this question? I don't think so.

 

[bendog]

I'm not necessarily making an argument, per se. I'm asking a question. You're misrepresenting the question, and answering a different question. A nutcase with his hands on a nuclear trigger is an immediate threat, we're talking about people who are not an immediate threat.

If a person wasn't an immediate threat in the United States, they wouldn't be using deadly force, unless it was under some unusual circumstances. It's possible that such a targeted person could be a US citizen and only in the cross hairs for a moment in time. Being a US citizen shouldn't change the status of an enemy combatant to such a degree that their rights as a US citizen trump the war effort against them. I would say capture is always the best solution if possible, but sometimes it isn't going to be possible, even in America.

Anwar al-Awalki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. If he had been in America, rather than Yemen, all else being equal, would the administration have had the authority to still use lethal force against him?

I think that's a question that is getting to the issue, and I really don't think the Admin has been clear on its position. If an American is overseas in a country where we cannot apprehend and/or extradite him, and if he is in a position of power and advocating attacks on Americans here or abroad, I don't see any const prohibition to killing him.

Whether the Admin actually complied with due process is my question. Due Process nominally gives a person rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard. I really don't want any "secret kill list." What's to prevent an unscrupulous PoTus from pursuing a political agenda? How about a guy like Assange? It may be that telling a terrorist we're going to kill him is not a sound tacticle decision. But even so, there's no practical reason to not force the Admin to make it's case for assassination to a judicial tribunal that doesn't disclose it's OK of the assassination before it occurs.

Back to your question, had this guy been in the US, there's no compelling reason to kill him. Arrest him, charge him with treason, and get on with it.

 

[Dubya]

Well all Rand is asking is what the administration's position on this issue is, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

The Senate has a recent history of wasting a lot of time and not getting things done.

I also have enough sense to know that people's opinions on what a President should be allowed to do are highly influenced by the President being Obama. Obama isn't going to be President forever and it would be stupid to put restrictions on the President that you wouldn't want for any President. I didn't like Bush, but I wouldn't have objected to him shooting an airliner down to protect the Capitol or WH.

But is it a waste of time to ask this question? I don't think so.

Since when does a question require a filibuster?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Senate has a recent history of wasting a lot of time and not getting things done.

I also have enough sense to know that people's opinions on what a President should be allowed to do are highly influenced by the President being Obama. Obama isn't going to be President forever and it would be stupid to put restrictions on the President that you wouldn't want for any President. I didn't like Bush, but I wouldn't have objected to him shooting an airliner down to protect the Capitol or WH.

But is it a waste of time to ask this question? I don't think so.

Since when does a question require a filibuster?

When they don't answer the question, and when you want to bring greater public attention to an issue.

 

[Dubya]

But is it a waste of time to ask this question? I don't think so.

Since when does a question require a filibuster?

When they don't answer the question, and when you want to bring greater public attention to an issue.

So Rand Paul got the answer he wanted and stopped his filibuster? I haven't seen the WH give in to any demands from Congress, have you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since when does a question require a filibuster?

When they don't answer the question, and when you want to bring greater public attention to an issue.

So Rand Paul got the answer he wanted and stopped his filibuster? I haven't seen the WH give in to any demands from Congress, have you?

No, but he did stop the filibuster. Rand was more interested in making a point and drawing attention to the issue, obviously. He successfully did that. He never expected the administration to answer him.

 

[Dubya]

When they don't answer the question, and when you want to bring greater public attention to an issue.

So Rand Paul got the answer he wanted and stopped his filibuster? I haven't seen the WH give in to any demands from Congress, have you?

No, but he did stop the filibuster. Rand was more interested in making a point and drawing attention to the issue, obviously. He successfully did that. He never expected the administration to answer him.

...And we all can sleep better knowing this President or any President is going to do the same thing to protect the United States.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So Rand Paul got the answer he wanted and stopped his filibuster? I haven't seen the WH give in to any demands from Congress, have you?

No, but he did stop the filibuster. Rand was more interested in making a point and drawing attention to the issue, obviously. He successfully did that. He never expected the administration to answer him.

...And we all can sleep better knowing this President or any President is going to do the same thing to protect the United States.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "going to do the same." Could you clarify?