Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Rand Paul Filibusters Brennan Nomination

Politics 2013 Rand Paul Filibuster Drone Policy Senate

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:48 PM

I, for one, applaud Senator Paul.  I have two reasons.  

1] He is actually filibustering.  He's not just secretly holding up the nomination.  He is actually speaking.  I applaud any Senator who believes in something so strongly that he or she would actually filibuster.  This is representative government at its finest.  

And 2] Someone has to put a spotlight on the drone policy and the ludicrous WH and Justice Department opinion that a US citizen can be killed on US soil.  It is not just unconstitutional, it is immoral and anti-American.  I do not care whether it is a Republican President espousing it or a Democratic one.  It is an offense to all Americans.

An y President who believes an American can be killed on US soil without due process should be impeached.  It really is as simple as that.



http://www.huffingto..._n_2819740.html

Quote


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced on the Senate floor Wednesday he intended to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA, citing concerns about President Barack Obama's policy on civil liberties.

"I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said.

Paul, an outspoken libertarian, pointed to what he called the abuses of executive power and civil liberties under Obama's administration. In particular, he objected to the contents of a letter he received from Attorney General Eric Holder that asserted the U.S. government had the legal authority to kill a U.S. citizen on American soil.

"Where is the Barack Obama of 2007?" he asked, referring to then-presidential candidate Obama's criticism of Bush-era violations of civil liberties. "If there were an ounce of courage in this body, I would be joined by many other senators," he added. "Are we going to give up our rights to politicians?"


Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#2 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:22 PM

I was going to ask if anyone knew Obama's stand on this, what he had said but then I read the rest of the linked article--

Quote

Paul elaborated on his concern Wednesday: "When I asked the president, 'Can you kill an American on American soil,' it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding an unequivocal, ‘No.’ The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The president says, ‘I haven’t killed anyone yet.’ He goes on to say, ‘And I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might.’ Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that?"

Is there any confirmation anywhere else of those actually being Obama's words?

Because that answer just does not work for me either. :(

I'm not a Rand Paul fan but I can stop and listen when he or anyone else says something like this if only to start doing my own research. (because I really don't trust either side to tell the whole truth anymore)

Edited by Tricia, 06 March 2013 - 03:23 PM.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#3 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 03:46 PM

This is by far the most troubling thing going on in the country today - the fact that this ongoing post 9/11 world has culminated in rules that allow our government to kill US Citizens based on legal means which the US Citizens have no knowledge of, nor even it's representatives in congress.  I fully believe that there is some good legal justification for such actions - and some good legal frameworks which can protect US Citizens appropriately. But if the legal justification exists in documented form that anyone can scruitinize and if the legal framework protecting the rights of citzens exists at all... the answers to these questions is no - and that's a problem. I hope its solved before Obama leaves office.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#4 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 04:32 PM

This is all part of the post-9/11 terrorist hysteria.  Each step, by each President,  erodes our Constitutional protections to live as free people.  

I remember I never stopped railing against the Bush Administrations Patriot Act and Military Commissions act.  I won't stop railing against Obama and the Drone killings or the preposterous  idea that American Citizens can be killed on US soil.

I said then and I'll repeat it now, no one in government ever gives up power.  It only increases.  People who didn't mind Bush having such powers now rail against Obama having them and increasing them.  When Obama leaves office, he will cede even more Presidential power to the next Executive.  This is not a "it's OK for my party to have these powers, and not yours" kind of thing.  NO President or Congress has the right to legislate away our right to live as free persons and to enjoy Due Process of law.  No ONE.

As a people, we have to rise up and speak out against such power.  It is not ideological and belongs to no particular Political Party.  Power seeks to maintain itself.  This is how power works.  Each new law or position paper, or Justice Dept opinion seeks only to encroach upon OUR rights as free men and women. and they are rights that we've allowed to come under Government preview.

This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue.  This is the one issue that should unite all of us.

Quote



Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Between this and the 14th Amendment, no American should be killed without Due Process and testimony in open court.  I don't care who is President.  

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#5 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:04 PM

From the article:

Quote

"I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said...

How nice if that were literally true.

Quote

"I will not sit quietly and let him shred the constitution," Paul said of Obama....

No, that privilege remains for the previous holder of the office.

I think I'll find my copy of Real Genius, and marvel at the popcorn.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#6 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 05:08 PM

View PostCait, on 06 March 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue.  This is the one issue that should unite all of us.

Since I spend so much time witnessing the human suffering of veterans of Bush's ridiculous wars, and have a strong understanding of how easy it is to start a war and how hard to end one, please include me out of that particular unity.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#7 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 06 March 2013 - 10:34 PM

View PostNonny, on 06 March 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

View PostCait, on 06 March 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue.  This is the one issue that should unite all of us.

Since I spend so much time witnessing the human suffering of veterans of Bush's ridiculous wars, and have a strong understanding of how easy it is to start a war and how hard to end one, please include me out of that particular unity.

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about Nonny.  I recognize that Obama had to clean up the mess of wars Bush began.  I'm just not sure what that has to do with targeting US Citizens on US land.  We're not at war with our own citizens.  Are we?

I suggested it was something we could all agree on because I actually thought we could all agree that US citizens have the right to Due Process.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#8 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:26 AM

I have many concerns about the president's drone campaign, but this isn't really one of them. In fact, I'm more concerned with the fact that "American citizen"/"American soil" is where people have chosen to draw the line on this issue. I think it's a dangerous misunderstanding of moral and constitutional principles that actually leaves more people and situations on the wrong side of the line.

Why do I say that? Because this argument seems to presume that the reason it's okay to assassinate other targets in the war on terror is because they're not American citizens, or because they're not on American soil. As if constitutional protections only need to apply to Americans in America, and anyone anywhere else in the world can be blown up without due process.

The truth is, noncitizens have as much right to constitutional protection as citizens. Americans can't try someone twice for the same offense because he's Pakistani, or sell someone into slavery because she's Canadian. If our government assassinates a foreign national, they need to have a much better reason than he's foreign and they really wanna. The justification is supposed to be that such an individual is being attacked in a theater of war, where the rules of due process are different than they would be away from the battlefield. If he isn't, he can't be attacked unilaterally, American citizen or no. And, on the other hand, if someone is a legitimate battlefield target, he can be attacked militarily even if he is an American -- even if he's on American soil. (For instance, a lot of Americans in their own backyards were legitimate military targets during the Civil War.)

Thus, the debate I think we should be having is: What are the boundaries of the theater of war? What does it mean if the battlefield is expanded to encompass the entire world -- and anyone anywhere might end up as collateral damage? What does it mean if a military target can be anyone who works against our interests, regardless of whether they're waging an active military campaign against us? That's the kind of debate that will help protect the lives and due process rights of Americans and non-Americans alike. If we give all that up and assume that only Americans in America have any rights, we're giving up on most of the people who are actually in danger of dying from our drone attacks.

Edited by Dev F, 07 March 2013 - 12:34 AM.


#9 UoR11

UoR11
  • Islander
  • 1,839 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 01:07 AM

Seriously. The fact that *anyone* is willing to argue on the side of the President being allowed to order assassinations of Americans proves we've lost the principles this country was founded to uphold. Caesar can do no wrong has no place in America, I don't care if Captain America suddenly appeared in the White House. Dammit, we're supposed to be better than this.
Yes, I am an economist. Yes, I do frequently sing "Can't Buy Me Love". No, I don't see any contradiction there.

#10 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:52 AM

View PostCait, on 06 March 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

View PostNonny, on 06 March 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

View PostCait, on 06 March 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue.  This is the one issue that should unite all of us.

Since I spend so much time witnessing the human suffering of veterans of Bush's ridiculous wars, and have a strong understanding of how easy it is to start a war and how hard to end one, please include me out of that particular unity.

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about Nonny.  I recognize that Obama had to clean up the mess of wars Bush began.  I'm just not sure what that has to do with targeting US Citizens on US land.  We're not at war with our own citizens.  Are we?

I suggested it was something we could all agree on because I actually thought we could all agree that US citizens have the right to Due Process.

We also have the right to expect well regulated militias, and look how well that's going.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#11 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 07:57 AM

View PostDev F, on 07 March 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

If our government assassinates a foreign national, they need to have a much better reason than he's foreign and they really wanna.

Is this the standard that the President is proposing?  Really?   :sarcasm:   Just because some ranting gasbag like Rand Paul says so doesn't make it so.  This tearing down the current president to make the previous one look better is just sad.   :(
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#12 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 08:10 AM

View PostCait, on 06 March 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

View PostNonny, on 06 March 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

View PostCait, on 06 March 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue.  This is the one issue that should unite all of us.

Since I spend so much time witnessing the human suffering of veterans of Bush's ridiculous wars, and have a strong understanding of how easy it is to start a war and how hard to end one, please include me out of that particular unity.

I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about Nonny.  I recognize that Obama had to clean up the mess of wars Bush began.  I'm just not sure what that has to do with targeting US Citizens on US land.  We're not at war with our own citizens.  Are we?

I suggested it was something we could all agree on because I actually thought we could all agree that US citizens have the right to Due Process.

That's not how I took it.  I see due process from the perspective of someone who has been told that I couldn't have lost jobs or been forced out of my MA program due to my disablities because that would be illegal, as if lack of enforcement doesn't trump having the law on your side every damn time.

I just heard a clip of Paul ranting on about sitting in a cafe and getting targeted, as if random assassinations for no reason would immediately become the new standard, and not wait for another Bush/Cheney style presidency, during which he would shift sides.  He's a ranting bag of gas, and is making a Hail Mary pass to distract people from legitimate concerns, like what Medicare would be like with vouchers, SS with chained CPI, and such.  I'm disgusted that he's being given the courtesy of a serious listen.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#13 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:50 AM

Well, you know, Nonny, even a broke clock is right, twice a day.  Rand Paul is RIGHT this time and he may never be right again.  I already don't like him, since he's the clown who asserted that he would have fired Hilary for Bengazi.  But for all that, he's both RIGHT on this issue, and RIGHT to actually  filibuster.  Truth is truth - and I don't overmuch care about the messenger.  Or, if the house was on fire, would we sit still until someone better than Rand Paul came to tell us so?

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#14 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 10:23 AM

http://www.thedailyb...ver-drones.html



Quote


But with this filibuster, Paul brought more attention to the issue of civil liberties than a hundred op-ed pieces penned over the past decade, giving rise to an unexpectedly broad coalition of constitutionalists and libertarians ranging from right to left, with Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden joining his filibuster on the floor along with Republican Senate colleagues including Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and Saxby Chambliss. That was an expansion of what The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake dubbed “the checks and balances caucus” in a must-read piece from two weeks ago.
...


Paul’s criticism of Obama largely sidestepped hyper-partisan personal attacks. Though the senator raised the slippery slope specter of martial law more than once, his primary complaint was the president’s shift on civil liberties in what was once officially called the war on terror. “Barack Obama of 2007 would be right down here with me arguing against this drone strike program if he were in the Senate,” he argued.


This is undoubtedly true. But alongside the question of executive power in this brave new world is the question of executive responsibility, namely the president’s constitutional oath to protect and defend the United States of America. As Yale Law professor and Daily Beast contributor Stephen Carter argued in his book <a data-ls-seen="1" href="http://www.amazon.co...&linkCode=as2&" target="_blank">The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama: “On matters of national security, at least, the Oval Office evidently changes the outlook of its occupant far more than the occupant changes the outlook of the Oval Office.”



QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#15 QuiGon John

QuiGon John

    Gone

  • Islander
  • 4,158 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 10:54 AM

Okay, I like just said I'd broken the habit of posting here. But there are several things related to this issue that I wanted to address.

1. If you really think the talking filibuster is somehow noble, or even really an improvement on the silent kind, I implore you to read a political scientist like Jonathan Bernstein on the issue. The gist of it is: A fillibuster's a fillibuster, a talking fillibuster doesn't make much difference except to give the minority TV time, and in this case, even that may have distracted from a potentially more relevant conversation on these issues (Holder before the Judiciary Committee)...

2. The Executive Branch does tend to accrue power as time goes on, particularly when Congress is deadlocked and willing to punt a lot of things that should be under its purview to be done by executive order because, gosh, they've gotta be done some way. Matt Glassman or somebody had a great article about this a few months ago... as best I recall, it's something to watch for, but it's a structural thing (when a popular President picks a fight with a faceless, divided Congress, the president tends to win) that is made worse by our current inability to get anything done. As long as we've got ideologically rigid, Parliament-style political parties laboring under a Madisonian-style system of checks and balances, that's not going to change... so, um, what was I saying? Oh, right, we're screwed. But it's not Obama's fault, particularly, or even Bush's.

3. I do believe that targeting Americans on American soil is a(n even) more serious issue than targeting others. Free speech is great, but the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee free speech to the people of England, Japan, or Ghana. It guarantees freedom of speech to American citizens, on American soil. Similarly, it's one thing to target a foreign national in a (spectacularly ill-advised, open-ended) war, and a very different thing to target your own citizens, just because. One potentially falls under the President's war powers, the other is clearly and always an abuse. Just in principle, I mean, without considering the facts in this particular case.

4. Drones are horrible. The whole thing is just horrible. But politics is the art of the possible, and right now there's no serious opposition whose policies I don't find tremendously objectionable in other ways-- such as Rand Paul's wing-nutty economic policies and tendency to pander to the far right. So, not to be unsympathetic, but... I'm not sure opposing them will do much good unless and until that opposition is shaped into a coherent national-defense policy with the support of a large, politically powerful voting block.

Edited by QuiGon John, 07 March 2013 - 10:54 AM.


#16 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 11:23 AM

Good post. John.  Addressing some of it...

View PostQuiGon John, on 07 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Okay, I like just said I'd broken the habit of posting here. But there are several things related to this issue that I wanted to address.

1. If you really think the talking filibuster is somehow noble, or even really an improvement on the silent kind, I implore you to read a political scientist like Jonathan Bernstein on the issue. The gist of it is: A fillibuster's a fillibuster, a talking fillibuster doesn't make much difference except to give the minority TV time, and in this case, even that may have distracted from a potentially more relevant conversation on these issues (Holder before the Judiciary Committee)...

Since in our country the minority voice IS important and its right to speak is its check against majority excess, then an actual (SPEAKING) filibuster is still a valuable process of the Senate.  Add to this that TV time is EXACTLY what is desired - WHY is the process being filibustered?  Why should our senators keep our courts understaffed, and bills prevented from passing, without the courage to state EXACTLY, to the American public, what the heck their objection is?  And, since the modern filibuster actually turns into a 60 vote requirement in contradiction to our constitution, thereby giving way too much power to the minority, I very much appreciate a REAL filibuster, where at least we get something of value from it - namely, the record of the complaint.. you know... on record... I'll surely check out the article (by way of disclosing I haven't yet), but the objections stated on their face are to some degree - the value, in my opinion.

Quote

2. The Executive Branch does tend to accrue power as time goes on, particularly when Congress is deadlocked and willing to punt a lot of things that should be under its purview to be done by executive order because, gosh, they've gotta be done some way. Matt Glassman or somebody had a great article about this a few months ago... as best I recall, it's something to watch for, but it's a structural thing (when a popular President picks a fight with a faceless, divided Congress, the president tends to win) that is made worse by our current inability to get anything done. As long as we've got ideologically rigid, Parliament-style political parties laboring under a Madisonian-style system of checks and balances, that's not going to change... so, um, what was I saying? Oh, right, we're screwed. But it's not Obama's fault, particularly, or even Bush's.

Agreed.  There's a reason why the whole "election reform" stuff needs to be so much more fundamental - and that's because our constitution isn't written to accommodate parties functioning in the rigid way they are currently functioning.  We need to be able to bust up the two-party monopoly - that would go a long way to restoring the functionality of our constitution.


Quote

4. Drones are horrible. The whole thing is just horrible. But politics is the art of the possible, and right now there's no serious opposition whose policies I don't find tremendously objectionable in other ways-- such as Rand Paul's wing-nutty economic policies and tendency to pander to the far right. So, not to be unsympathetic, but... I'm not sure opposing them will do much good unless and until that opposition is shaped into a coherent national-defense policy with the support of a large, politically powerful voting block.

The beauty of it is - we don't HAVE to agree with the whole to agree with a part.  The Senate can put forth legislation that lots of other Senators agree on and we might agree with it... and the coalition could fall apart tomorrow over other issues.  And ... so what?  The important part is - the legislation we DO agree on getting passed.

Which is why I am stating again my support for Rand Paul's filibuster, despite not liking the guy as a politician, at all. I agree with his stand on THIS issue, and I'm pretty clear I don't agree with him on hardly any other.


QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#17 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 11:56 AM

i have never understood the effect, impact of the filibuster; how others think it's some Thing; they can talk til they must go to the gents, so maybe six hours at the most? then the vote still happens; so what's the diff? other than shining a spotlight on an issue, or your perturbed-ness at some bill, what does it really achieve?
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#18 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:29 PM

View PostQueenTiye, on 07 March 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Well, you know, Nonny, even a broke clock is right, twice a day.  Rand Paul is RIGHT this time and he may never be right again.  I already don't like him, since he's the clown who asserted that he would have fired Hilary for Bengazi.  But for all that, he's both RIGHT on this issue, and RIGHT to actually  filibuster.  Truth is truth -

If, of course, it actually is truth.  I'd like to see a fact check, and not from a fact checker with an agenda.

Quote

and I don't overmuch care about the messenger.  Or, if the house was on fire, would we sit still until someone better than Rand Paul came to tell us so?

I can't answer for anybody else, but I wouldn't.  Fire is fire, and I'd be grateful for the warning.  However, I'm seeing a problem with the set up here.  Why would I wait for somebody to tell me about the fire if I can see the flames and smell the smoke?  And I'd be a whole lot happier if others who can see and smell the fire would call the fire department rather than wait to hear what I want them to do.

Which brings me back to the filibuster, or, as I'm calling it, the filibluster, this is just another attempt to set a rhetorical fire, call FIRE, and hope everybody is so panicked that nobody puts the fire out with actual facts.

I'm bidin' my time.  That's the kind of gal I'm.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#19 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,309 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:30 PM

View Postoffworlder, on 07 March 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

i have never understood the effect, impact of the filibuster; how others think it's some Thing; they can talk til they must go to the gents, so maybe six hours at the most? then the vote still happens; so what's the diff? other than shining a spotlight on an issue, or your perturbed-ness at some bill, what does it really achieve?

Well - there are lots of possible outcomes - not all of them probable, of course.

Best case - you drone on and on and make enough of a good point that you change the outcome of the vote - i.e., you convince some minds that were otherwise made up.
Worst case - nobody cares that you drone on and on, and in the end, you go to the "gents" (or the "gals" I guess?) as you say, and it's all over.

But more often - what happens is exactly what IS happening.  People notice and talk about it.  And, an engaged citizenry is an important part of a functioning democracy.  Getting people to think and talk about an issue of importance is not a wasted effort.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#20 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 12:43 PM

View PostDev F, on 07 March 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

I have many concerns about the president's drone campaign, but this isn't really one of them. In fact, I'm more concerned with the fact that "American citizen"/"American soil" is where people have chosen to draw the line on this issue. I think it's a dangerous misunderstanding of moral and constitutional principles that actually leaves more people and situations on the wrong side of the line.

Actually I do agree, but no one is listening when we speak up against drone attacks on foreigners.  That doesn't make it OK, but for me, I see the discussion beginning where Americans have a self-interest.  Ask Americans about foreigners [terrorists allegedly]  and they will, almost to a man or woman, talk about American national security.  The debate gets sidetracked immediately.  I feel you have to begin, in this country, with a debate over American citizens on American land.  That grabs our attention.  That's not so much national security and it is civil liberties   We can actually have a debate then, and then expand it to the moral conclusion.

Americans are a self-interested lot.  I say that as an American, so I don't mean it entirely as a negative, but we are all self-interested.  It's part of our culture.  The whole, make it on your own thing.  We care about "our" rights and our freedom first.  It's not pretty, but it is the way it is.  [and I speak of Americans as a culture, not each and every individual.  There are of course people in American who care about the same moral issues you speak of here so well.]



Quote

Thus, the debate I think we should be having is: What are the boundaries of the theater of war? What does it mean if the battlefield is expanded to encompass the entire world -- and anyone anywhere might end up as collateral damage? What does it mean if a military target can be anyone who works against our interests, regardless of whether they're waging an active military campaign against us? That's the kind of debate that will help protect the lives and due process rights of Americans and non-Americans alike. If we give all that up and assume that only Americans in America have any rights, we're giving up on most of the people who are actually in danger of dying from our drone attacks.

A debate that is long over due imo.  

Ask all the detainees in Guantanamo, or the secret rendition sites, or the people we have disappeared all in the name of our national security.  All done with no discussion with the people of the United States.  All done in our names, but without our permission.  And there is no end in sight.

Yes, there are serious moral issues to be discussed.  I believe it begins with this one because it is one we can agree on almost immediately as a nation.  Other lines can be drawn as we discuss it.  The line has already come up between you and the members in this discussion--this is good and as it should be.  We bgin with our own enlightened self-interest and expand it almost immediately to the interests of humanity.

View PostQueenTiye, on 07 March 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Well, you know, Nonny, even a broke clock is right, twice a day.  Rand Paul is RIGHT this time and he may never be right again.  I already don't like him, since he's the clown who asserted that he would have fired Hilary for Bengazi.  But for all that, he's both RIGHT on this issue, and RIGHT to actually  filibuster.  Truth is truth - and I don't overmuch care about the messenger.  Or, if the house was on fire, would we sit still until someone better than Rand Paul came to tell us so?

QT

Exactly.  No one is forgetting who Rand Paul is on other issues.  But, in this case, he actually took to the floor.  He is actually speaking.  The cameras were on him, and that is the whole point of a filibuster   Now the nation is listening to this debate and debating amongst one another.  We're not in the dark.  The filibuster isn't silently done behind the curtain.  It's loud and the world can listen in on how our democracy is supposed to work.

I don't even care if Paul was using it to elevate his name in national politics.  He can have a self interest.  We all do on most things.  It's only important that we actually discuss this.  The government is saying it can legally kill people in America with no due process.  That's something we need to put some light on.

Rand Paul may be a broken clock [as QT so eloquently put it] but he is right on this issue.  He is 100% right.  Which also illustrates that no one is 100% right or wrong, or 100% evil or good.  People are human, and while we may agree mostly with some, or disagree a lot with others, sometimes someone we never agree with says something we all should agree with.  :)

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics, 2013, Rand Paul, Filibuster, Drone Policy, Senate

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users