Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Old 03-06-13, 07:50 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Mentioned in a few different threads but I feel it deserves a thread of its own.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-john-brennan/


The reason:

Paul’s comments from the Senate floor come after he’s raised objections in recent weeks. Paul first threatened to filibuster the Brennan nomination in late February, when he sent a letter to administration officials asking whether the U.S. government would ever use a drone strike to kill an American on U.S. soil.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. responded to Paul’s inquiry Monday, saying the administration has “no intention” of carrying out drone strikes on suspected terrorists in the United States, but could use them in response to “an extraordinary circumstance” such as a major terrorist attack.
executions without due process. hmm...

When's the last time we had a real filibuster?
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:04 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Good for Rand Paul. Nothing will come of it, but someone needs to make an effort to raise the alarm over the crap going on in this country. Cool to see someone making an effort at least.
Dr Mabuse is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:05 PM
  #3  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,794
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Mike Lee (R-Utah) is talking now.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:08 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,916
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse View Post
Good for Rand Paul. Nothing will come of it, but someone needs to make an effort to raise the alarm over the crap going on in this country. Cool to see someone making an effort at least.
It's only politics.
PopcornTreeCt is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:19 PM
  #5  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,731
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Can you imagine the uproar that would have occurred if one of GWB's attorneys general had testified to what Holder did? Obama would be at the head of the crowd.
X is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:20 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,465
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

I would love to see Congress reassert some control over war powers. However, I'm skeptical that any of them except for Senator Paul has any view other than "Presidents from my party should have broad and plenary authority; presidents from the other party should have no authority."
JasonF is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:22 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,465
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by X View Post
Can you imagine the uproar that would have occurred if one of GWB's attorneys general had testified to what Holder did? Obama would be at the head of the crowd.
Yeah, but can you imagine the outrage if that happened and Obama had done what GWB did in Iraq? We'd both be hypothetically outraged!
JasonF is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:32 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,497
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Kudos to Senator Wyden for making it Bipartisan! Pround of my Senator Paul today!
BKenn01 is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:33 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I would love to see Congress reassert some control over war powers. However, I'm skeptical that any of them except for Senator Paul has any view other than "Presidents from my party should have broad and plenary authority; presidents from the other party should have no authority."
Ron Wyden seems to be supporting Paul.
Venusian is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:35 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Why So Blu?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 30,364
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Yeah, but can you imagine the outrage if that happened and Obama had done what GWB did in Iraq? We'd both be hypothetically outraged!
They would be lynching Obama. Hypothetically, of course.
Why So Blu? is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:56 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,465
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Ted Cruz from Texas also seems to be supporting the filibuster.

I think Paul, Cruz, and Wyden should quit their jobs and run for Congress. Then they could introduce legislation to define the circumstances under which drones can be used. Perhaps repeal the AUMF. Perhaps pass legislation to address some of the egregious powers identified in the NDAA last year.
JasonF is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 08:56 PM
  #12  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,731
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Yeah, but can you imagine the outrage if that happened and Obama had done what GWB did in Iraq? We'd both be hypothetically outraged!
That doesn't exactly address the issue. The hypocrisy is astounding.
X is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 09:05 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,497
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Ted Cruz from Texas also seems to be supporting the filibuster.

I think Paul, Cruz, and Wyden should quit their jobs and run for Congress. Then they could introduce legislation to define the circumstances under which drones can be used. Perhaps repeal the AUMF. Perhaps pass legislation to address some of the egregious powers identified in the NDAA last year.
Do you think its fair to say that Paul didnt try to stop the NDAA?
BKenn01 is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 09:18 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,038
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by X View Post
Can you imagine the uproar that would have occurred if one of GWB's attorneys general had testified to what Holder did? Obama would be at the head of the crowd.
I seem to recall both Ashcroft and Gonzales doing plenty of outrageous things.
Jason is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 09:24 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,465
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by BKenn01 View Post
Do you think its fair to say that Paul didnt try to stop the NDAA?

Like I said, Paul (and probably Wyden) is the only guy who I believe when he talks the talk.

On September 11, President Bush scrambled fighters. As it happened, they did not have to fire on any airliners. But suppose they had. Suppose we had received actionable intelligence after the airliners took off but before they hit WTC. Suppose a fighter had one of those airliners in its sights. Should it have fired? Because that's the authority the President is claiming in his letter.

You want to put guardrails around that authority? Go for it. I think there should be very tight limits on that authority. But how many of the Senators supporting Mr. Paul's filibuster are going to back that bill? Why hasn't it been introduced?

We hear a lot about the killing of al-Aulaqi, that he was a U.S. citizen and entitled to due process. Guess what -- he got due process. This is the law Congress passed on September 14, 2011:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That's all the authority the President needs to kill someone who he determines is a member of al Qaeda. Congress gave it to him over a decade ago. They have the power to change it. They have the power to take that authority away. I want them to. I wish they would. And today, it looks like they actually could.

But I don't believe it. I think what's going to happen is one of two things. Either Obama will twist enough arms or pay enough lip service to break the filibuster, or he'll withdraw Brennan, the Republicans will declare victory, and he'll nominate someone else to head the CIA. Either way, I sincerely doubt that we'll see any changes to AUMF, any changes to NDAA, or any other tangible action out of Congress.
JasonF is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 09:27 PM
  #16  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,731
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by Jason View Post
I seem to recall both Ashcroft and Gonzales doing plenty of outrageous things.
And there were plenty of protests against them by the same people who are now willing to overlook even more severe offenses that are contrary to the Constitution.
X is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 09:37 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,497
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Like I said, Paul (and probably Wyden) is the only guy who I believe when he talks the talk.

On September 11, President Bush scrambled fighters. As it happened, they did not have to fire on any airliners. But suppose they had. Suppose we had received actionable intelligence after the airliners took off but before they hit WTC. Suppose a fighter had one of those airliners in its sights. Should it have fired? Because that's the authority the President is claiming in his letter.

You want to put guardrails around that authority? Go for it. I think there should be very tight limits on that authority. But how many of the Senators supporting Mr. Paul's filibuster are going to back that bill? Why hasn't it been introduced?

We hear a lot about the killing of al-Aulaqi, that he was a U.S. citizen and entitled to due process. Guess what -- he got due process. This is the law Congress passed on September 14, 2011:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That's all the authority the President needs to kill someone who he determines is a member of al Qaeda. Congress gave it to him over a decade ago. They have the power to change it. They have the power to take that authority away. I want them to. I wish they would. And today, it looks like they actually could.

But I don't believe it. I think what's going to happen is one of two things. Either Obama will twist enough arms or pay enough lip service to break the filibuster, or he'll withdraw Brennan, the Republicans will declare victory, and he'll nominate someone else to head the CIA. Either way, I sincerely doubt that we'll see any changes to AUMF, any changes to NDAA, or any other tangible action out of Congress.
What about his 16 year old son, Did he get due process? I would add that I don't think much will change but I do think this makes the administration squirm a bit.

Last edited by BKenn01; 03-06-13 at 10:04 PM.
BKenn01 is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 09:44 PM
  #18  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CALI!
Posts: 6,972
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Arpeggi is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 10:00 PM
  #19  
Moderator
 
TheBigDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,677
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

I wonder how long he'll last. He just passed 11 hours.

WaPo had this article earlier today:

Filibusters ain’t what they used to be

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched an old-fashioned filibuster Wednesday — though after a while he handed off to Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) for some bipartisan help.

But it doesn’t appear that Paul is going to come close to the legendary filibusters — starting with Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” who was depicted as having spoken nearly 24 hours, though the 1939 movie only ran a bit more than two hours.

The record filibuster goes, of course, to former South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond in opposing the 1957 civil rights bill. Thurmond, then a Democrat, held the floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes.

But there were some others, according to the Associated Press and the Senate Web site, who came close to his record or at least rambled on endlessly.

Sen. Alfonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.) nearly matched Thurmond, speaking for 23 hours and 30 minutes as he tried to block a military spending bill in 1986. He also held forth for 15 hours and 14 minutes against a tax bill in 1992.

Sen. Wayne Morse (I-Ore.), held the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes as he tried to block an oil bill in 1953.

Sen. Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (R-Wis.), only spoke for 18 hours and 23 minutes when he was trying to block a currency bill in 1908.

Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) held the floor for 16 hours and 12 minutes as he tried to block an increase in the debt ceiling in 1981. (Ah, the debt ceiling.)

Sen. Huey Long (D-La.), back in the ‘30’s, filibustered bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. Long, who entertained spectators by reciting Shakespeare and reading recipes for fried oysters and “pot likkers” — the liquid left behind after boiling greens — filibustered for 15 hours and 30 minutes in 1935, require Senate confirmation for some New Deal employees.

And the late Sen. Bob Byrd (D-W.Va.) endured for 14 hours and 13 minutes in opposition to the civil rights bill.

It could be it’s harder to go that long these days. In the old days, lawmakers might have read from the telephone book, but we don’t have them so much these days. Maybe they could read their Twitter feeds?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z3
TheBigDave is online now  
Old 03-06-13, 10:03 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,465
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by BKenn01 View Post
What about his 16 year old son, Did he get due process?
As much due process as anybody else in a war zone. Which is to say, the administration's position -- and you can believe it or not -- is that Abdulrahman al Aulaqi was not the target of the drone strike that killed him; he simply happened to have the ill fortune to be in range of the drone strike, which was aimed at Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian senior al Qaeda operative.

Six other people were killed in the same drone strike, by the way, and assuming they were not affiliated with al Qaeda, I'm not sure why I should be more troubled by the younger al Aulaqi than I am about the other six simply because al Aulaqi was born in Denver rather than Dubai. For what it's worth, I'm troubled by all seven deaths, as well as every other innocent who has been killed by our strikes on al Qaeda operatives. But I would also be troubled if we didn't take steps to root out al Qaeda. I don't know what the right answer is.
JasonF is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 10:06 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,465
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Here is a very long but very thought provoking article on the history of assassinations by the U.S. government over the last 35 years or so. If you support Senator Paul, you should probably be holding Jimmy Carter up as our greatest modern president.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/assassinations/
JasonF is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 10:47 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
PopcornTreeCt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 25,916
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Here is a very long but very thought provoking article on the history of assassinations by the U.S. government over the last 35 years or so. If you support Senator Paul, you should probably be holding Jimmy Carter up as our greatest modern president.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/assassinations/
good read. I actually wished it was longer and went into more detail about Bush era CIA.
PopcornTreeCt is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 10:51 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,451
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

What's wrong with using a drone to kill somebody in the US who is determined to commit mass murder? Seems like a complete full-on retard would even allow such an act.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-06-13, 11:03 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
BKenn01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Big Blue Nation!
Posts: 4,497
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei View Post
What's wrong with using a drone to kill somebody in the US who is determined to commit mass murder? Seems like a complete full-on retard would even allow such an act.
Because that's not the guy anyone is worried about protecting. It's the concern that it may be used to kill political enemies. I am not concerned that Obama is planning on using this. It's what happens if shit hits the fan here like it has in Greece and all of the sudden it's the peasants against the state. It has the potential to be abused by D and R.....
BKenn01 is offline  
Old 03-07-13, 12:12 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,535
Re: Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei View Post
What's wrong with using a drone to kill somebody in the US who is determined to commit mass murder?
Something, something laws. Something something due process. Something something civil rights.
Sean O'Hara is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.