Rand Paul Filibuster of Brennan Nomination

• Cleveland Buck

  

  Going on 4 and a half hours now. At least there is one decent human being in Washington. All he wants is Obama to vow to never assassinate a U.S. citizen in the United States without due process of law. Good luck with that.
  
  http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/
• gut

  I almost feel like Paul is being set-up here.
  
  I completely get his point, but I think we also have to be realistic about "never say never" from the administration's perspective. Is it that different from giving an order to shoot down an airliner on 9/11? I don't really see a distinction between taking out a bad guy with a SWAT team vs. a drone.
• QuakerOats

  May not always agree with him - usually do - but God bless him for holding to his convictions. What this radical administration has done, is doing, and will do, is simply REVOLTING on every count, so I am glad there are at least a few left who will not let them just run roughshod over We The People.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  That's why SWAT team raids are illegal too. Those aren't usually done by the federal government though. And they shouldn't be shooting down airliners either. They should allow the airlines to provide sufficiently armed security on planes that would have prevented 9/11.
• gut

  Cleveland Buck;1401518 wrote:That's why SWAT team raids are illegal too. Those aren't usually done by the federal government though. And they shouldn't be shooting down airliners either. They should allow the airlines to provide sufficiently armed security on planes that would have prevented 9/11.

  I agree in principle. In reality you can't rely solely on local law enforcement or an airplane security guard and fail to protect the lives of thousands of Americans.
  
  I mean, I suppose they could SAY they won't do it and then deal with the fallout when an extraordinary circumstance makes it necessary...That's what is making Paul look a little bit looney, a little bit conspiracy nut here.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  When they hijacked planes with box cutters, it is really easy to see that even one armed guard would have been sufficient to stop it, two would have been overkill. I would be much more comfortable with that than surrendering my right to life and right to a trial because we might see an "extraordinary circumstance".
• sleeper

  

  Applause for Rand Paul. Love his father who made me have hope that there are some good people in Congress.
• gut

  Cleveland Buck;1401523 wrote:When they hijacked planes with box cutters, it is really easy to see that even one armed guard would have been sufficient to stop it, two would have been overkill. I would be much more comfortable with that than surrendering my right to life and right to a trial because we might see an "extraordinary circumstance".

  You're re-writing history. The status-quo - proven again and again, at the time - was non-intervention to ensure safety of the passengers. Planes would never have had armed guards because there wasn't a demonstrated need. It's not something that would have been funded, by the for-profit airlines or the gubmit. It's just one example where you want to take an option off the table when there were no other options.
  
  You're arguing against a fail-safe despite evidence, repeated again and again, that local law enforcement or private enterprise is sometimes not prepared or up to the task. I don't think you can ask, or expect, the gubmit to sit on its thumb waiting for some rental cop to perform a Rambo-like intervention. With regard to potentially thousands of lives (and we're not talking airplanes necessarily), a Benghazi-like non-response isn't just foolish it's irresponsible.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  If the airlines were financially responsible for the damages caused on 9/11 they sure as hell would have had adequate security measures, all without any interference from your beloved government. Again, I do not want to surrender my rights because some extraordinary circumstance may arise. If you do, then you are welcome to.
• tk421

  

  Senator Obama sure did complain about then President Bush overreaching his power during the Iraq war, now that Obama is President he is mum on the issue.
• tk421

  

  Twitter is going crazy with this, lots of tweets praising Paul.
• tk421

  

  of course, MSN not covering Rand Paul, don't want the public to hear his completely legitimate points and questions.
• gut

  Cleveland Buck;1401537 wrote: Again, I do not want to surrender my rights because some extraordinary circumstance may arise. If you do, then you are welcome to.

  And what about the rights of thousands that are sacrificed if the gubmit does nothing in an extraordinary circumstance? But I'm confused - exactly what rights are you concerned with being taken away? Then perhaps we can discuss the odds of that vs. hundreds/thousands of innocent bystanders losing their life because the gubmit does nothing.
  
  Reasonable and foreseeable is a key determinant of liability. The airlines had insurance for hijacking, and any insurer worth their salt factored in chances of death regardless how unlikely. And the airlines WERE sued and DID pay/settle, so your argument fails completely.
  
  You are naive to assume that a tactical military response would never be needed or justified.
• justincredible

  

  Rand Paul = BOSS. Just a few minutes away from 7 hours now.
• BGFalcons82

  

  justincredible;1401564 wrote:Rand Paul = BOSS. Just a few minutes away from 7 hours now.

  i've listened to about 20 minutes of it (still going on at 7:10). He is asking how a nation can order drone strikes on Americans without an arrest, trial or sentence. For the moonbats in attendance, he wants to know why the Constitution is being shat upon by the Obama Administration.
  
  As majorspark always asks, even if you agree with the need to murder Americans without due process, do you also agree to give this same power to his successors?
• HitsRus

  

  That there are any who feel the governmnet should be able to order a premeditated assasination of an American citizen, without due process, is witness of how far we have fallen as a nation from our core beliefs.
• Terry_Tate

  

  Cruz was just reading #StandWithRand tweets to Rand Paul and it's the #2 trend on twitter. Awesome.
• majorspark

  

  HitsRus;1401583 wrote:That there are any who feel the governmnet should be able to order a premeditated assasination of an American citizen, without due process, is witness of how far we have fallen as a nation from our core beliefs.

  Eric Holder several took minutes to admit that it is unconstitutional. They just hate having to be bound by that document and not their own fluid definition in this case the general term "appropriate".
  
  [video=youtube;b1ioeUtBWvE][/video]
• End of Line

  

  Once it was called for the people by the people. Anymore this country is turning into a Police state. He has too much power, Rand is sticking up for US. The US should not have the power to have fucking drones policing our skies and the ability to kill us w/o due process. Our Gov't is a massive joke. I've been seeing this happen for a while now following Anonymous.
• ts1227

  

  Good for him, have to appreciate his tenacity and conviction on the subject.
  
  Of course most of you here are too dense to realize it because you can't selectively frame your party arguments if you did acknowledge it, but he's doing a decent job of criticizing our current political system in general, spanning multiple past administrations. Of course no one there is listening to him, but welcome to our Congress.
• gut

  I just don't see much more than semantics, on both sides at work here...between Paul and the alarmists acting like Obama's drones will fly around the country willy-nilly assasinating people and the Obama camp (understandably, actually) unwilling to commit to an ex-post debate on "imminent threat".
• Cleveland Buck

  

  ts1227;1401608 wrote:Good for him, have to appreciate his tenacity and conviction on the subject.
  
  Of course most of you here are too dense to realize it because you can't selectively frame your party arguments if you did acknowledge it, but he's doing a decent job of criticizing our current political system in general, spanning multiple past administrations. Of course no one there is listening to him, but welcome to our Congress.

  I know exactly what he is saying, and if he isn't the next president we are finished.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  
• Cleveland Buck

  

  
• BGFalcons82

  

  Cleveland Buck;1401617 wrote:I know exactly what he is saying, and if he isn't the next president we are finished.

  I like him. At least he is doing something to show us what he's about.
  
  However, we were finished the day Our Dear Dictator signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2011. Here's more wonderful news regarding its "affordability" - http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2013/03/06/report-young-americans-healthcare-premiums-skyrocket
  
  It can't be undone at this point. It is the iceberg we hit in the North Atlantic and it will consume us right before our very eyes. At least we proved we aren't racists.