Rand Paul conducts filibuster

[nickiknack]

One of the oldest and most storied traditions of the Senate made a sudden return to Capitol Hill on Wednesday when a junior senator seized control of the chamber with an hours-long filibuster involving rambling speeches aimed at blocking a vote on President Obama’s choice to lead the CIA.

Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) with help from other junior senators, the filibuster stretched nearly 13 hours — with the Senate adjourning at about 12:40 a.m. Thursday — and was aimed at drawing attention to deep concern on both sides of the aisle about the administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones in its fight against terrorists and whether the government would ever use them in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rand-paul-conducts-filibuster-in-opposition-to-john-brennan-obamas-drone-policy/2013/03/06/1367b1b4-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html

You know, I hate it when I have to agree with the Pauls, it makes me feel dirty...

[Dakota Bob]

Patten Oswald retweeted this today, I think it's appropriate.

You know that band that has always sucked, but you hate to admit you like one of their songs? That was Rand Paul today.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Obama made me agree with Rand Paul on something. I'm gonna go shower now

[Meshakhad]

This is how filibusters should be done!

[Material Defender]

Republicans and Democrats alieks should be ashamed on these things. This needs to be fixed.

[Distind]

Yes, because choking the legislative process for 13 hours for the sake of sending good old fashion soldiers in to fuck up and kill the wrong things and die in the process is brilliant.

I mean I agree someone should be held accountable for drone strikes which cause collateral damage, particularly when it's due to faulty intelligence behind the launch. But I really fail to see how drones are any worse than sending soldiers to do the same thing. Which we do. What do people expect, some domestic idiot to 'go missing' in a fucking crater left by a drone strike? or is it just more acceptable to take a few agents out and kill people? Something the CIA was entirely capable of during the 60s, yet rarely did.

It really seems like continuing wank over the use of drones in any capacity they might actually be useful to me. They're the next best thing to people sprouting wings when it comes to searching a large area quickly or any form of reconnaissance. But no one talks about that because OMG we killed someone without a person doing it themselves, it's totally worse than killing people with people.

Maybe I left my bleeding heart at the cleaners or something.

[DiscoBerry]

This is how filibusters should be done!

Yeah, you gotta give him credit since he is actually standing there talking, and didn't just file a motion under the new filibuster rules

[Material Defender]

Yes, because choking the legislative process for 13 hours for the sake of sending good old fashion soldiers in to fuck up and kill the wrong things and die in the process is brilliant.

I mean I agree someone should be held accountable for drone strikes which cause collateral damage, particularly when it's due to faulty intelligence behind the launch. But I really fail to see how drones are any worse than sending soldiers to do the same thing. Which we do. What do people expect, some domestic idiot to 'go missing' in a fucking crater left by a drone strike? or is it just more acceptable to take a few agents out and kill people? Something the CIA was entirely capable of during the 60s, yet rarely did.

It really seems like continuing wank over the use of drones in any capacity they might actually be useful to me. They're the next best thing to people sprouting wings when it comes to searching a large area quickly or any form of reconnaissance. But no one talks about that because OMG we killed someone without a person doing it themselves, it's totally worse than killing people with people.

Maybe I left my bleeding heart at the cleaners or something.

The issue is that Obama has the ability to kill USA citizens without charges, not that they can use drones to do it.

[m52nickerson]

The issue is that Obama has the ability to kill USA citizens without charges, not that they can use drones to do it.

...and this is different from past presidents how? 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The issue is that Obama has the ability to kill USA citizens without charges, not that they can use drones to do it.

...and this is different from past presidents how?

The right of the President to assassinate American citizens without charges or trial seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. What other Presidents asserted that they had that power? Not that it matters because saying, "But other Presidents did crooked stuff too!" is not a satisfactory reason for ignoring our Constitutional guarantees.

By the way, am I the only one who thinks it's amusing that if it were a Republican (e.g. George W. Bush) asserting this type of power that people on the "left" would be calling for his head?

[m52nickerson]

The right of the President to assassinate American citizens without charges or trial seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. What other Presidents asserted that they had that power? Not that it matters because saying, "But other Presidents did crooked stuff too!" is not a satisfactory reason for ignoring our Constitutional guarantees.

By the way, am I the only one who thinks it's amusing that if it were a Republican (e.g. George W. Bush) asserting this type of power that people on the "left" would be calling for his head?

I'm sure a majority of the left would be.  That is really part of a bigger problem.

Now it maybe new that a President is stating the issue the way Obama is but Presidents over stepping constitutional boundaries is nothing new.  FDR did it with the Japanese American camps during WWII.  Lincoln did it during the civil war.

Presidents are always going to step over there restraints when if the feel it is necessary and Congress is unwilling to stop them.

[Sylvana]

The right of the President to assassinate American citizens without charges or trial seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. What other Presidents asserted that they had that power? Not that it matters because saying, "But other Presidents did crooked stuff too!" is not a satisfactory reason for ignoring our Constitutional guarantees.

The difference is that while previous presidents have undoubtedly done crooked stuff, these last few have gone so far as to legalize it. Before a group of unknown men had to make someone disappear and it was all very hushed up. Now the president can just order someone to be killed and it is perfectly legal, no one can stop him as a result. Just like all the other blatantly unconstitutional things the American government has been getting away with lately.

As much as I despise the filibuster on principle, Rand Paul has a point. Especially hen he called out congress and called them all cowards who don't care about the constitution at all.

[Meshakhad]

This is how filibusters should be done!

Yeah, you gotta give him credit since he is actually standing there talking, and didn't just file a motion under the new filibuster rules

Exactly. If I were a senator, I would totally do the traditional method. Once I ran out of stuff to say that was actually relevant, I'd just break out a good book and start reading it aloud.

"Gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you, On Basilisk Station, by David Weber."

[dpareja]

This is how filibusters should be done!

Yeah, you gotta give him credit since he is actually standing there talking, and didn't just file a motion under the new filibuster rules

Exactly. If I were a senator, I would totally do the traditional method. Once I ran out of stuff to say that was actually relevant, I'd just break out a good book and start reading it aloud.

"Gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you, On Basilisk Station, by David Weber."

This is Rand Paul, so wouldn't Atlas Shrugged be more appropriate? And once he's finished with that doorstopper, he can start on The Fountainhead.

[Cerim Treascair]

This is how filibusters should be done!

Yeah, you gotta give him credit since he is actually standing there talking, and didn't just file a motion under the new filibuster rules

Exactly. If I were a senator, I would totally do the traditional method. Once I ran out of stuff to say that was actually relevant, I'd just break out a good book and start reading it aloud.

"Gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you, On Basilisk Station, by David Weber."

Better idea.  Just start with the whole Honor Harrington series.  You'll be there for two weeks.