Is Rand Paul Still Talking?

Rand Paul currently has the longest filibuster of the century running in the senate. Why?

All he wants is for the President to admit a limit to his authority and say that he won't kill non-combatant American citizens on U.S. soil with a drone strike.

This does not seem like too much to ask, does it?

You can actually watch it live here. Most everyone else has gone home, including a dejected Harry Reid, who put up a motion allowing only 90 more minutes of debate and got shot down.

Paul himself has admitted that he's very unlikely to have much effect on the Brennan nomination, which is what he's filibustering here. However, it's nice to see someone, anyone, stand up for the rights of American citizens to not be murdered without due process. Call me crazy.

Several senators have participated with Paul so far, including Ron Wyden (D - OR). Nice to see at least one person realize this is a bi-partisan issue.

Well, good luck to him certainly. If that's the aim, I'm down.

Minarchist wrote:

All he wants is for the President to admit a limit to his authority and say that he won't kill non-combatant American citizens on U.S. soil with a drone strike.

Do you have a source for this? Here's what I read of the letter:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013...

Where did you get the jump from Pearl Harbor and the Twin Towers to non-combatants? What am I missing/what has Rand Paul seen in that letter that I haven't?

C'mon, Cheeze, this little stunt of yours is getting old. You're a smart person. You know exactly what this is about and you're just bringing up semantic points to try and slip somebody up in a legal wording mistake. It's a sh*t tactic and you know it. Stop it.

The current administration has shown no remorse in targeting non-combat US Citizens Awlaki and his 16-year-old son for strikes in non-combat scenarios. The current administration has also shown they are happy to distort the word "imminent" beyond all mental comprehension. Obama willingly admits to sending the CIA on strikes against non-combat Americans without any court proceedings whatsoever. The burden of proof is 100% on the administration to show that they won't continue to stretch the law to suit their purposes.

You'll have to excuse my doubting their words, when all their actions show exactly the opposite intentions.

So... what? When Bush had these powers, it was no big deal, but bow that Obama has them "OH! EXECUTIVE OVERREACH BRRRRRRR?"

The ACLU has come out in support of Rand's filibuster. The Tea Party and the ACLU hand-in-hand? Trippy.

Xeknos wrote:

So... what? When Bush had these powers, it was no big deal, but bow that Obama has them "OH! EXECUTIVE OVERREACH BRRRRRRR?"

There were people who decried it when Bush did this. It seems to be forgotten, but there were. At any rate, Obama seems to have doubled down, split a pair, and then doubled down again.

I have no problem standing with Rand Paul on this. Such a thing should be a no brainer. I really don't understand the issue, unless the white house feels that by acknowledging the question they are somehow losing control of the conversation. I suppose this could be a savvy play on their part to let the extremists work themselves into a fervor before responding in an offhand way that totally satisfies the mainstream folks and makes his opponents look silly.

Well, we certainly should repeal the AUMF, which allows this sort of thing to occur.

To clarify, I'm not against the filibuster, and I support repealing the AUMF. However, the timing of this is suspect.
The law is clearly for killing Americans that are clearly engaged in actions against the US, in areas where it's unfeasible or extremely dangerous to capture them. The law won't be used to murder innocent civilians on US soil, and to claim otherwise is... disingenuous, and seems like a ploy by the tea party to incite panic.

Dammit Xeknos, stop editing. It makes it hard to quote you in response.

Xeknos wrote:

Well, we certainly should repeal the AUMF, which allows this sort of thing to occur.

No arguments here. At the very least, it needs to be heavily revised, clarified and attenuated.

However, Cheeze has a point. This is clearly for killing Americans that are clearly engaged in actions against the US. The law won't be used to murder innocent civilians on US soil, and to claim otherwise is... disingenuous.

No, he doesn't.

The 5th Amendment is a protection from the US government without due process. It doesn't say "except in the case of...", and whoever is sitting in the presidency has clearly shown a desire to twist normal legal processes so it's a very important distinction. You can't say the 5th Amendment applies to everyone except those brown guys over there, because look at that gleam in their eye!

What exactly has this administration done that really, truly makes you think they wouldn't take out someone on US soil if they thought it "preferential", to use their legalese? Everything I've seen has shown just the opposite. I think it's unlikely that they would do such a thing, but they've shown me zero evidence that they really, truly wouldn't, cross their hearts and hope to die. They continue to push the boundaries just a little bit, and then cover up their deeds with truly tortured definitions of words like "imminent".

More thoughts from the ACLU

Minarchist wrote:

Dammit Xeknos, stop editing. It makes it hard to quote you in response. :)

Sorry. I edited it the first time, the saw you responded during the edit so I reverted.

Minarchist wrote:

All he wants is for the President to admit a limit to his authority and say that he won't kill non-combatant American citizens on U.S. soil with a drone strike.

We kind of already have a thread on this part. But I sort of missed the part where President Obama declared himself Caesar. Will the next task be for President Obama to promise that he will not put religious dissidents in a pit to fight lions? I do not recall Clinton taken to the mat to state he would not institute domestic rocket strikes. And that man loved sending rocket barrages.

Furthermore, congress holds the purse strings to the drone program. They could pull the plug.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, the president has the constitutional authority to use the full force of his power as commander and chief to command the armed forces against rebellion, insurrection, and revolt.

KingGorilla wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

All he wants is for the President to admit a limit to his authority and say that he won't kill non-combatant American citizens on U.S. soil with a drone strike.

We kind of already have a thread on this part. But I sort of missed the part where President Obama declared himself Caesar. Will the next task be for President Obama to promise that he will not put religious dissidents in a pit to fight lions? I do not recall Clinton taken to the mat to state he would not institute domestic rocket strikes. And that man loves sending rocket barrages.

Your attempt at discrediting hyperbole aside, Clinton wasn't sending missiles against US citizens. [EDIT: And, as as mentioned to Xeknos earlier, there were still those of us unhappy with those actions.] The Obama administration has willfully admitted they have sent the CIA against US citizens without due process by unilaterally labeling them dangerous because of information that they refuse to release. US soil is the only place they are still able to ask whether this would happen, because it's already happened off of US soil -- there's no question left to ask there.

Furthermore, congress holds the purse strings to the drone program. They could pull the plug.

The same congress that hasn't managed to pass a budget -- in four years -- that they're mandated to issue? Somehow I have my doubts.

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson also authorized the killing of American citizens in a similar way. At that time it was against those engaged in piracy and employed as privateers. The navy and marines waged a pretty heavy campaign at this time. Washington has a special distinction of having to command troops while president to fight Americans abroad and at home.

But like I said, already in another thread, said a few times.

But that logical leap of killing Americans currently associated with and engaged in terrorist or military actions at home or abroad connecting to wanton killing of Americans domestically seems tenuous.

Minarchist wrote:

All he wants is for the President to admit a limit to his authority and say that he won't kill non-combatant American citizens on U.S. soil with a drone strike.

Okay.

As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
Minarchist wrote:

C'mon, Cheeze, this little stunt of yours is getting old. You're a smart person. You know exactly what this is about and you're just bringing up semantic points to try and slip somebody up in a legal wording mistake. It's a sh*t tactic and you know it. Stop it.

No, I did not know exactly what this is about. And starting off your post acting like a total asshole doesn't help, but I think I get what it's about for you now.

The current administration has shown no remorse in targeting non-combat US Citizens Awlaki and his 16-year-old son for strikes in non-combat scenarios. The current administration has also shown they are happy to distort the word "imminent" beyond all mental comprehension. Obama willingly admits to sending the CIA on strikes against non-combat Americans without any court proceedings whatsoever. The burden of proof is 100% on the administration to show that they won't continue to stretch the law to suit their purposes.

You'll have to excuse my doubting their words, when all their actions show exactly the opposite intentions.

Okay, so rightly or wrongly, you doubt their words. For the sake of argument let's go with that.

PiP wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

All he wants is for the President to admit a limit to his authority and say that he won't kill non-combatant American citizens on U.S. soil with a drone strike.

Okay.

As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

also from the part of the Holder letter I quoted:

the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001

What exactly does the Obama administration need to say that would satisfy that burden for you, and why doesn't that letter do so?

...and that's a wrap: Sen. Rand Paul ended his old-school talking filibuster at around 12:30 a.m. Thursday morning, after nearly 13 hours standing on the floor. "I would try to go another 12 hours and try to break Strom Thurmond’s record, but there are some limits to filibustering and I am going to have to go take care of one of those here," the Kentucky Republican said shortly before calling it quits.

There you have it. Peeing is more important to Rand Paul than saving American lives.

Minarchist wrote:

The Obama administration has willfully admitted they have sent the CIA against US citizens without due process by unilaterally labeling them dangerous because of information that they refuse to release.

Do you really believe that Anwar Al-Awlaki was *not* directly supporting and even operating plots to attack the US? What I object to is the naive assertion that this guy was just a total innocent, maybe a religious student who just happened to be selected by the government for death for no good reason at all. That narrative does not match actual events. In reality, Al-Awlaki led at least two plots that attempted to take down US civilian planes, and repeatedly and publicly spoke for Al Quaeda and called for violence against US interests. That's information that has always been out there.

That alone - his public actions, which no one says did not happen, are strong evidence of treason. Given that we can't just waltz into Yemen and arrest the guy, what do we do? To my mind, we take him out like any other Al Quaeda leader. Many hundreds of other people - US citizens or not - who were suspected of similar things were arrested in the last decade, so it's clear that this kind of action is not the standard path. It's the exception, again going just by public evidence.

Going from that to "the President will kill any random person for any reason" is disingenuous, because there have been many, many occasions where US citizens and others could have been killed, but were not. Al-Awlaki was quite public about his beliefs and his efforts against the US, and he paid the price of hiding in a country he thought (rightly) would make him inaccessible to those who would bring him to trial.

How is this different from police burning to death a guy who killed several people in LA a few weeks back? It's not. And yet you're not up in arms that he was killed rather than arrested. I'll bet that the LA police force has killed more people in the last 6 years on less evidence than the US President has in the same time period. Not that that's a good thing, but it illustrates that the scale that we're talking about is truly small, and very much reflects other actions that we generally accept without protest here in the US.

Worry more when Obama calls out the National Guard against college students, because that's a bigger threat to our lives and freedom than potential drone assassinations in the US. And besides, it happened, and we survived it.

I'm uncomfortable with the oversight of the drone program, but I have no illusions as to who and what Al-Awlaki was. He declared war on the US, made himself inaccessible to law enforcement and even military ground forces, and simply failed to protect against the final method we had to reach out and stop him. Tough nuts. He knew the risks when he signed up to fight.

Should have used a Stadium Pal(tm)

Paleocon wrote:

Should have used a Stadium Pal(tm)

Wouldn't help. Rand Paul is full of sh*t.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Should have used a Stadium Pal(tm)

Wouldn't help. Rand Paul is full of sh*t.

Hmm. I suppose that Depends(tm).

Stopped clock, twice a day, etc.. So glad that the talking filibuster is making a comeback.

Paleocon wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Should have used a Stadium Pal(tm)

Wouldn't help. Rand Paul is full of sh*t.

Hmm. I suppose that Depends(tm).

IMAGE(http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/4-the_rock_clap_clap_gif.gif)

Tanglebones wrote:

So glad that the talking filibuster is making a comeback.

I heard C-SPAN beat NBCs primetime numbers last night.

ChrisLTD wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

So glad that the talking filibuster is making a comeback.

I heard C-SPAN beat NBCs primetime numbers last night.

Kids, this is how I filibustered your mother.

In most things I think Rand Paul is a jackass, but in this I agreed with him.

Lowering the Bar, a Legal Humor blog, did a pretty decent analysis of Holder's letter to Rand Paul. His overall conclusion is that the whole thing was weasel speak for "We're not saying we have that power but we totally do".

CheezePavilion wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

C'mon, Cheeze, this little stunt of yours is getting old. You're a smart person. You know exactly what this is about and you're just bringing up semantic points to try and slip somebody up in a legal wording mistake. It's a sh*t tactic and you know it. Stop it.

No, I did not know exactly what this is about. And starting off your post acting like a total asshole doesn't help, but I think I get what it's about for you now.

You asked me for a source on a paraphrase of Rand Paul that was plastered on nearly every news outlet in the country. Why would you do that if not to try and lay traps? This is a trend with you and I'm not playing that game.

Robear wrote:

Do you really believe that Anwar Al-Awlaki was *not* directly supporting and even operating plots to attack the US? What I object to is the naive assertion that this guy was just a total innocent, maybe a religious student who just happened to be selected by the government for death for no good reason at all. That narrative does not match actual events. In reality, Al-Awlaki led at least two plots that attempted to take down US civilian planes, and repeatedly and publicly spoke for Al Quaeda and called for violence against US interests. That's information that has always been out there.

What I believe doesn't matter in this discussion. He is entitled to due process, even in the case of treasonous activities. You don't get to lay aside the law just because it's expedient to do so, or because enforcing it is not particularly feasible. We had this discussion in other threads; I'm not sure we're going to break new ground here.

That alone - his public actions, which no one says did not happen, are strong evidence of treason. Given that we can't just waltz into Yemen and arrest the guy, what do we do? To my mind, we take him out like any other Al Quaeda leader. Many hundreds of other people - US citizens or not - who were suspected of similar things were arrested in the last decade, so it's clear that this kind of action is not the standard path. It's the exception, again going just by public evidence.

Arrested being the key word there, yes?

Going from that to "the President will kill any random person for any reason" is disingenuous, because there have been many, many occasions where US citizens and others could have been killed, but were not. Al-Awlaki was quite public about his beliefs and his efforts against the US, and he paid the price of hiding in a country he thought (rightly) would make him inaccessible to those who would bring him to trial.

I have not, nor have I heard anyone else say, that he is going to start killing a random person for any reason, so I'm not sure whence came this strawman. Your constitutional rights don't really amount to much except when someone is trying to deprive you of them.

This line is probably leading to a discussion as to the efficacy of the War on Terror, and exactly where the US' jurisdiction ends for what they deem "imminent" threats. This isn't the place to have it, though.

How is this different from police burning to death a guy who killed several people in LA a few weeks back? It's not. And yet you're not up in arms that he was killed rather than arrested. I'll bet that the LA police force has killed more people in the last 6 years on less evidence than the US President has in the same time period. Not that that's a good thing, but it illustrates that the scale that we're talking about is truly small, and very much reflects other actions that we generally accept without protest here in the US.

I'm actually really unhappy with how that all shook out, but I don't post in P&C hardly ever anymore so you might not have known that.

Otherwise, trying to create some sort of moral relativity because not as many people have died as they have at others' hands? That doesn't even make sense. "Well, sure, you murdered this woman, but we're going to let you off the hook because this other guy over here murdered a whole family." It doesn't matter what the scale is. It's still wrong.

Worry more when Obama calls out the National Guard against college students, because that's a bigger threat to our lives and freedom than potential drone assassinations in the US. And besides, it happened, and we survived it.

I did worry. And "we survived it"? That's supposed to make it okay?

I'm uncomfortable with the oversight of the drone program, but I have no illusions as to who and what Al-Awlaki was. He declared war on the US, made himself inaccessible to law enforcement and even military ground forces, and simply failed to protect against the final method we had to reach out and stop him. Tough nuts. He knew the risks when he signed up to fight.

We have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the scope of America's ability to pursue those it deems threats. We both know this, and I'm not going to try to change your mind because I know it's not going to happen (and an internet forum would be about the worst possible place to try, anyway ). I think the important point here is that we have to protect our rights even when they apply to people we really don't like a lot, and even when there's a potential that it could put other people in danger. We don't get to throw our constitution and due process out the window just because we feel threatened. We don't get to deny an obviously rotten apple the rights we have ostensibly granted him.

Nevin73 wrote:

In most things I think Rand Paul is a jackass, but in this I agreed with him.

What you said/ditto/+1/whatever.

This is pure political grandstanding done in order to raise his profile for future national races and I think Paul is, to put it mildly, an epic-level douchebag, but anything that shines light on a drone program that simply offs people the government deems a threat is OK by me.

He raised some of the first valid points in this entire talk. I believe that with our history with Waco, Kent State (and other state misuses of National Guard forces), the US army used as the personal thugs of railroad bosses, there are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed with the use of even spy drones on US soil. Any time the US military or the National guard at the state level gets sent out, there is ample opportunity for chaos. Not long after Kent State, the New Mexico National Guard stabbed protesters with bayonettes. I think focusing that the National Guard incidents were failures of state governors, not the President is an important point to note, however.

Up until Paul stood, it has been a sea of innuendo, FUD, and hack question making.

Any drone program with intentions with action in the US needs to be prepared and sensitive to the fact that another Waco, another Kent State would be horrible. These events were preventable, and a repeat inexcusable. This is no different from emergency responsiveness plans for use of jet aircraft or tanks.