Rand Paul Filibusters John Brennan Nomination

[Mayhem]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibuster_n_2819740.html

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?"

Paul had asked the Justice Department about the constitutionality of drone strikes and whether they could be used agains U.S. citizens. Holder responded in a letter that conceded the military could authorize a drone strike on U.S. soil.

"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," Holder wrote.

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?"

Paul started his filibuster speech around 11:45 a.m. Unlike most modern filibusters, the Kentucky senator is actually attempting to talk through the whole thing -- like Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" -- rather than simply raising his hand to object and requiring 60 votes to proceed. The last "talking" filibuster was in 2010, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), spoke out against extending the Bush-era tax cuts. Filibuster reform advocates have proposed returning to this old-fashioned style.

"I will not sit quietly and let him shred the constitution," Paul said of Obama, later adding that getting an answer from the president on drone strikes was like "pulling teeth."

The White House declined to comment Wednesday.

Paul's speech drew on the work of bloggers from both the left and right who have criticized the president on civil liberties, such as Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian and Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic. Kevin Williamson of the National Review also earned a mention for a piece he wrote asking whether under Obama's standards the Nixon and Johnson administrations should have bombed college campuses.

"To be bombed in your sleep? There's nothing American about that," Paul said. "There's nothing constitutional about that."

Last week, Paul voted for the nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary -- another key Obama national security appointment -- after first voting against cloture on the matter, saying he was using his vote to try to get more information about Hagel.

Brennan's confirmation was expected as soon as Wednesday, according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide. Following Paul's filibuster, the aide was still "cautiously optimistic" that once the senator ended his speech a time agreement for a vote could be reached.

Paul also used his filibuster Wednesday to speak out against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He conceded that he would have supported the Afghanistan war at the outset, but said it had since become far wider than its initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The problem is as this war has dragged on, they take that authorization of use of force to mean pretty much anything, and so they have now said that the war has no geographic limitations," he said. "So it's really not a war in Afghanistan, it's a war in Yemen, Somalia, Mali. It's a war in unlimited places."

Paul went on to reprimand Congress for ceding its authority to govern U.S. wars. "Were we a body that cared about our prerogative to declare war, we would take that power back," he said. "But I'll tell you how poor -- and this is on both sides of the aisle -- how poor is our understanding or belief in retaining that power here."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined the filibuster just before 3 p.m., giving Paul a break after more than three hours of speaking.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) then took over for Lee just after 3:10 p.m. "You must surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile," he said.

Paul resumed speaking around 3:45 p.m, and the filibuster went bipartisan just before 4:00 pm, when Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) joined in.

Wyden said he intended to vote for Brennan's confirmation, but added that the nomination provided an opportunity to seek more information on the Obama administration's legal documentation for targeted killings. He said the Senate Intelligence Committee had gotten that information.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

 

[Trident1]

A muslim convert leading the CIA against jihadists.........yeah this is gonna work out.

 

[Jagger69]

I don't like Brennan either. Nor do I like Obama's predisposition to so easily abandon what were alleged to be his core beliefs. However, the larger issue is the existence of an obstructionist tool like the filibuster as providing the means for a single individual to be empowered to block the democratic process in the first place. Unfortunately, it most certainly is constitutional. As Scott Lemieux so eloquently writes, "The filibuster is a blight on American political institutions, and should be abandoned. But, like many bad policies, it's not unconstitutional." I sure wish it was.

I dislike Rand Paul for many reasons that might make for decent discussion in another thread but he does offer a thought-provoking question in regard to this debate...."Where is the Barack Obama of 2007?". I sure wish I had legitimate choices as options to the people who are currently representing me in government because none of them have my best interests included as a priority in their agendas.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I don't like Brennan either. Nor do I like Obama's predisposition to so easily abandon what were alleged to be his core beliefs. However, the larger issue is the existence of an obstructionist tool like the filibuster as providing the means for a single individual to be empowered to block the democratic process in the first place. Unfortunately, it most certainly is constitutional. As Scott Lemieux so eloquently writes, "The filibuster is a blight on American political institutions, and should be abandoned. But, like many bad policies, it's not unconstitutional." I sure wish it was.

I dislike Rand Paul for many reasons that might make for decent discussion in another thread but he does offer a thought-provoking question in regard to this debate...."Where is the Barack Obama of 2007?". I sure wish I had legitimate choices as options to the people who are currently representing me in government because none of them have my best interests included as a priority in their agendas.

I'm only quoting to answer this one question, because honestly, I cannot speak intelligently about the other subjects...other then I keep getting e-mails from Rand Paul for support.

Here's your answer, it's really a simple one, and I'm being totally serious, and not trying to bust your chops.


His true colors are showing, because he doesn't have to lie anymore. He won the second term, he has nothing to loose, and can't be elected again, so he's going to shove as many of his agendas down our throats as he can, and appoint totalitarian puppets into positions of power, so he can be sure his whims will be carried out. He has no regard for the Constitution, and even less of a regard for the citizens that pay him, and he serves.

 

[Jagger69]

I'm only quoting to answer this one question, because honestly, I cannot speak intelligently about the other subjects...other then I keep getting e-mails from Rand Paul for support.

Here's your answer, it's really a simple one, and I'm being totally serious, and not trying to bust your chops.


His true colors are showing, because he doesn't have to lie anymore. He won the second term, he has nothing to loose, and can't be elected again, so he's going to shove as many of his agendas down our throats as he can, and appoint totalitarian puppets into positions of power, so he can be sure his whims will be carried out. He has no regard for the Constitution, and even less of a regard for the citizens that pay him, and he serves.

I disagree but only to the extent that you are specifically referring to Obama as someone who would supposedly "shove as many of his agendas down our throats as he can, and appoint totalitarian puppets into positions of power, so he can be sure his whims will be carried out." One could make that exact statement about any man who occupies the White House. To make it to the political level that any president does, he has already been bought and paid for by interests that would likely be in juxtaposition to his own actual core beliefs and certainly inconsistent in a most disappointing fashion to those who so faithfully voted for him. Obama does it, Bush did it, Clinton did it, Bush #1 did it, Reagan did it, etc....that's the way this fucked-up system works. LBJ (no true champion of racial equality as a part of his actual core beliefs.....I mean, my God, the guy was from and politically represented the Texas hill country....it don't get much more redneck than that!) was quoted as saying after his stalwart pursuit of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "I'll have those ******s (Freeones won't let me use the "N" word) voting democratic for the next 200 years". Not exactly a man of personal integrity to say the least.

Obama and all those before him (presidents, senators, representatives, governors, etc) are no different. They say what they have to say and compromise their personal convictions to do whatever it takes to do what matters most to them....be elected to gain and/or maintain their own or their party's grip on power. Those who wield the real power in the USA love it when right is divided against left because it plays right into their divide-and-conquer strategy. It is a sad but true reality foisted on a naive and trusting American public that gets hoodwinked every election cycle by a cacophony of lies, deception and self-serving fear-mongering on both sides of the political spectrum in order to accomplish these ill-gotten results that do nothing to advance the things that are truly honorable, noble and good about this wonderful and magnificent country in which I live.

I love the United States of America but I do not love its government. This quotation (and particularly the part in bold) from Thomas Jefferson's masterpiece, the Declaration of Independence, is not actually a part of the supreme law of the land but states ever-so-eloquently the exact feelings that I possess as I write this. How I wish it were not the case.

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Pure and simple Rand Paul is a turnip who should be ignored. Kentucky should have its statehood revoked for the two turds they have put in the senate.

 

[meesterperfect]

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I disagree but only to the extent that you are specifically referring to Obama as someone who would supposedly "shove as many of his agendas down our throats as he can, and appoint totalitarian puppets into positions of power, so he can be sure his whims will be carried out." One could make that exact statement about any man who occupies the White House. To make it to the political level that any president does, he has already been bought and paid for by interests that would likely be in juxtaposition to his own actual core beliefs and certainly inconsistent in a most disappointing fashion to those who so faithfully voted for him. Obama does it, Bush did it, Clinton did it, Bush #1 did it, Reagan did it, etc....that's the way this fucked-up system works. LBJ (no true champion of racial equality as a part of his actual core beliefs.....I mean, my God, the guy was from and politically represented the Texas hill country....it don't get much more redneck than that!) was quoted as saying after his stalwart pursuit of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "I'll have those ******s (Freeones won't let me use the "N" word) voting democratic for the next 200 years". Not exactly a man of personal integrity to say the least.

Well of course they're all crooked lying sacks of shit...but YOU asked about obama, you DID NOT ask about all politicians. I answered your question, as it was asked. Would you really expect ME, to give any politician slack?!?! ME, seriously? C'mon dude.

 

[Jagger69]

Well of course they're all crooked lying sacks of shit...but YOU asked about obama, you DID NOT ask about all politicians. I answered your question, as it was asked. Would you really expect ME, to give any politician slack?!?! ME, seriously? C'mon dude.

Point made. You did indeed directly address the question that Rand Paul posed and that I reiterated and I appreciate that. However, please understand that I only used your post as a platform to expand similar criticism to any and all to whom it would apply.

 

[lurkingdirk]

It's almost like Mr. Paul thinks he is a real politician.

 

[Mayhem]

It's almost like Mr. Paul thinks he is a real politician.

I applaude him for doing this. The past 9 months-worth of posts notwithstanding, I don't get so partisan that I can't acknowledge a job well done. This drone business bugs me, it bugs me that a so-called Democrat and Liberal is behind it and I want answers too. If it takes Rand Paul to get them, so be it.