Rand Paul is Filibustering John Brennan

[Jarlaxle]

Exactly, he has to be defending himself, or others.

You continue to make no sense. Let me help you. If you are ordered to surrender to LEO and you refuse while posing a continuing threat, the LEO may use violence to take you down. Why you are doing what you are doing can be sorted out later. It may not be used as a defense to resist.

What consitutes a threat? According to that asshat Milwaukee police chief just being an armed citizen is a "threat"

What should happen is a LEO that uses excessive force for no reason should be fired.

No, a cop using excessive force should not be fired. He should be SHOT.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm really surprised by the reaction of some of the left here over this it's a good old fashion Mr Smith goes to Washington filibuster that I understand has the support of the ACLU and Code Pink what is there not for the left to like here?

A combination of their viceral, mouth-frothing hatred of Rand Paul and their pathetic gushing and fawning over anything Obama does.

 

[Sarah G]

I'm really surprised by the reaction of some of the left here over this it's a good old fashion Mr Smith goes to Washington filibuster that I understand has the support of the ACLU and Code Pink what is there not for the left to like here?

Hardly. Rand Paul has just about zero integrity, he's an extremist, racist and he hates women.

Rachel Maddow Corners Rand Paul On His Extremist Views Of Civil Rights

Normally, I'd cut this video down from its full 19 minutes, but truly, to appreciate the wonderfulness of Maddow's approach and the sidestepping Rand Paul attempts to avoid the corner Maddow in which deftly places him, you really must watch the whole thing.

And boy, does Rand Paul squirm under the surgical questioning of Rachel Maddow. He never answers her questions, and how can he? His stance makes no sense. Taylor Marsh:

It's the nakedness and naïveté of Mr. Paul's views on civil rights laws, that legislation should not impact businesses, that is not only evidence that he's unfit for Congress, but that he's actually dangerous. To think that the United States would no longer require laws to protect minorities is just ignorant and lacking in experience in the real world.

As for his anti-women's rights views, especially on individual freedoms, it's absolutely discriminatory against women. It's appalling in this day and age that a doctor would believe that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. The editorial board found his views "repellent" and they are correct. To say that the unborn has "equal" rights to the woman is simply wrong.

Rachel Maddow Corners Rand Paul On His Extremist Views Of Civil Rights | Crooks and Liars

He's no Mr. Smith. HaHa

Video at site.

 

[Interpol]

Although I support Rand Paul's concerns in the overall, I find him annoying to watch and listen to.

His father is so charming and charismatic. And funny. But Rand Paul is this squeaky, oily, bird-like man with Tom Hanks hair from Bonfire of the Vanities, and just when he starts to make sense he just goes off the rails and all of a sudden you just find yourself tuning out when he starts to go on and on about Hitler and evil and dictators and all this other crap.

Plus, he oversimplifies the issue. I mean you've got to think we're stupid if we're going to believe that Obama thinks he can kill Americans whenever he wants and just for the fun of it.

You can have your qualms with a policy position, but when you start saying that Obama is Hitler and that Obama thinks he has the right to kill an unarmed American sitting in a coffee shop, that's the sign that you're a fucking idiot who gets bad information and regards it as the truth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Although I support Rand Paul's concerns in the overall, I find him annoying to watch and listen to.

His father is so charming and charismatic. And funny. But Rand Paul is this squeaky, oily, bird-like man with Tom Hanks hair from Bonfire of the Vanities, and just when he starts to make sense he just goes off the rails and all of a sudden you just find yourself tuning out when he starts to go on and on about Hitler and evil and dictators and all this other crap.

Plus, he oversimplifies the issue. I mean you've got to think we're stupid if we're going to believe that Obama thinks he can kill Americans whenever he wants and just for the fun of it.

You can have your qualms with a policy position, but when you start saying that Obama is Hitler and that Obama thinks he has the right to kill an unarmed American sitting in a coffee shop, that's the sign that you're a fucking idiot who gets bad information and regards it as the truth.

Yes, why would we question whether a President who goes over his kill list every Tuesday morning, dubbed "Terror Tuesdays" inside the administration, and who has already killed three American citizens with zero due process think he has the authority to use lethal force against Americans within the United States in the same way? I can't imagine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin_Kennedy, please define "due process" as you understand its misuse in this discussion and how you believe the administration has misused it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin_Kennedy, please define "due process" as you understand its misuse in this discussion and how you believe the administration has misused it.

Due process requires some amount of judicial oversight, and Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, and his son, also an American citizen, received no judicial oversight in Obama's order to have them killed. Though this is not the point that Rand is trying to argue. His question involves whether the administration believes it has the same power to do within the United States to American citizens as it has done outside of the United States in the case of the Awlakis.

 

[Dubya]

Kevin_Kennedy, please define "due process" as you understand its misuse in this discussion and how you believe the administration has misused it.

Due process requires some amount of judicial oversight, and Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, and his son, also an American citizen, received no judicial oversight in Obama's order to have them killed. Though this is not the point that Rand is trying to argue. His question involves whether the administration believes it has the same power to do within the United States to American citizens as it has done outside of the United States in the case of the Awlakis.

Who is the head of our armed forces?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin_Kennedy, please define "due process" as you understand its misuse in this discussion and how you believe the administration has misused it.

Due process requires some amount of judicial oversight, and Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, and his son, also an American citizen, received no judicial oversight in Obama's order to have them killed. Though this is not the point that Rand is trying to argue. His question involves whether the administration believes it has the same power to do within the United States to American citizens as it has done outside of the United States in the case of the Awlakis.

Who is the head of our armed forces?

I suppose the answer you're fishing for is that Barack Obama as President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no fishing that the president, not the judiciary, commands the Armed Forces of the US.

Obama is well within his war powers to order such attacks on US citizens who have made it absolutely clear they are enemies of the country and will resist any time to capture them and are in a place that is not feasible for forcible capture. Such individuals assume full responsibility for collateral casualties when they knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily go to war against their country.

 

[Dubya]

Due process requires some amount of judicial oversight, and Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, and his son, also an American citizen, received no judicial oversight in Obama's order to have them killed. Though this is not the point that Rand is trying to argue. His question involves whether the administration believes it has the same power to do within the United States to American citizens as it has done outside of the United States in the case of the Awlakis.

Who is the head of our armed forces?

I suppose the answer you're fishing for is that Barack Obama as President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

No, the answer is it is the President and Obama is just presently the President. It's stupid to try to set policy on one President you don't like, which becomes a standard all Presidents have to follow. It's possible a situation could happen where a President might have to immediately order deadly force inside the United States and doesn't have time to have the decision reviewed by anyone. It's possible the person who is an immediate threat doesn't have his citizenship written on his forehead. I believe due process has already given the President the authority to act, just by having the job.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is no fishing that the president, not the judiciary, commands the Armed Forces of the US.

Obama is well within his war powers to order such attacks on US citizens who have made it absolutely clear they are enemies of the country and will resist any time to capture them and are in a place that is not feasible for forcible capture. Such individuals assume full responsibility for collateral casualties when they knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily go to war against their country.

But does it then follow that the President can do anything he wants as Commander-in-Chief? What falls outside the scope of his so-called "war powers?"

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." - Fifth Amendment

I would argue that this trumps any implied war power that the President claims to have in regards to using lethal force against U.S. citizens. Now, we're obviously not going to agree on this issue. We're not going to convince the other.

Rand, however, is not making an argument on the President's supposed war powers, or what have you. Rand is merely asking whether the President believes the same policies that he has used overseas against American citizens, under the same circumstances, could be used within the United States. That is the crux of the issue, not whether these war powers exist, but whether the administration believes these powers are the same within the United States as they are outside of the United States.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who is the head of our armed forces?

I suppose the answer you're fishing for is that Barack Obama as President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

No, the answer is it is the President and Obama is just presently the President. It's stupid to try to set policy on one President you don't like, which becomes a standard all Presidents have to follow. It's possible a situation could happen where a President might have to immediately order deadly force inside the United States and doesn't have time to have the decision reviewed by anyone. It's possible the person who is an immediate threat doesn't have his citizenship written on his forehead. I believe due process has already given the President the authority to act, just by having the job.

The bolded portion is exactly what I said.

The rest is a straw man argument. Rand is not talking about immediate threats. He's talking about situations where the person may be known to be a threat in the future, but is not an immediate threat. Anwar al-Awlaki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was never a threat at all. So, if they had been in the U.S. rather than Yemen, could Obama have ordered the use of lethal force against them all else being equal? That's Rand's question, essentially.

 

[Dubya]

I suppose the answer you're fishing for is that Barack Obama as President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

No, the answer is it is the President and Obama is just presently the President. It's stupid to try to set policy on one President you don't like, which becomes a standard all Presidents have to follow. It's possible a situation could happen where a President might have to immediately order deadly force inside the United States and doesn't have time to have the decision reviewed by anyone. It's possible the person who is an immediate threat doesn't have his citizenship written on his forehead. I believe due process has already given the President the authority to act, just by having the job.

The bolded portion is exactly what I said.

The rest is a straw man argument. Rand is not talking about immediate threats. He's talking about situations where the person may be known to be a threat in the future, but is not an immediate threat. Anwar al-Awlaki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was never a threat at all. So, if they had been in the U.S. rather than Yemen, could Obama have ordered the use of lethal force against them all else being equal? That's Rand's question, essentially.

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?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, the answer is it is the President and Obama is just presently the President. It's stupid to try to set policy on one President you don't like, which becomes a standard all Presidents have to follow. It's possible a situation could happen where a President might have to immediately order deadly force inside the United States and doesn't have time to have the decision reviewed by anyone. It's possible the person who is an immediate threat doesn't have his citizenship written on his forehead. I believe due process has already given the President the authority to act, just by having the job.

The bolded portion is exactly what I said.

The rest is a straw man argument. Rand is not talking about immediate threats. He's talking about situations where the person may be known to be a threat in the future, but is not an immediate threat. Anwar al-Awlaki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was never a threat at all. So, if they had been in the U.S. rather than Yemen, could Obama have ordered the use of lethal force against them all else being equal? That's Rand's question, essentially.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bolded portion is exactly what I said.

The rest is a straw man argument. Rand is not talking about immediate threats. He's talking about situations where the person may be known to be a threat in the future, but is not an immediate threat. Anwar al-Awlaki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was never a threat at all. So, if they had been in the U.S. rather than Yemen, could Obama have ordered the use of lethal force against them all else being equal? That's Rand's question, essentially.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Dubya]

The bolded portion is exactly what I said.

The rest is a straw man argument. Rand is not talking about immediate threats. He's talking about situations where the person may be known to be a threat in the future, but is not an immediate threat. Anwar al-Awlaki, at the time of his death, was not an immediate threat. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was never a threat at all. So, if they had been in the U.S. rather than Yemen, could Obama have ordered the use of lethal force against them all else being equal? That's Rand's question, essentially.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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.

 

[Darkwind]

So, has the President ended this yet?

All he has to do is swear that he'll uphold his Constitutional duty.

How hard is that for the President?