Desperate Randy Paul debates drones in Senate dreading dangerous domestic drones

[ace99]

Pledging to speak "until I can no longer speak," Kentucky Republican Randy Paul on Wednesday launched a Senate floor filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan to be the next CIA director.

After speaking for over three hours in objection to what he calls the Obama administration's lack of legal clarity on its drone policy, Randy was joined on the floor by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and later by Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, and Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon, who stepped in to help continue the filibuster.

"You must surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile," Cruz said of Randy upon taking the floor, alluding to the famous filibuster portrayed by the actor in the 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Senate Foreign Relations member Sen. Randy Paul, R-Ky. questions Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, during Kerry's confirmation hearing before the committee to replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Randy objects to what he calls the Obama administration's lack of clarity over whether a suspected terrorist who is an American citizen can be targeted with a drone strike on American soil.

"I will speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important," Randyl said in opening his remarks on the Senate floor. "That your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty."

In a response to a letter of inquiry, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to Randy this week that such a targeted strike is "possible, I suppose" in a catastrophic circumstance, although the administration has "no intention" of doing so.

Randy began his filibuster as Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the attorney general reiterated his defense of the administration's policy.

Randy said Wednesday that he is concerned that the administration has failed to name specific criteria about who could be subject to targeting, invoking the public animosity towards some anti-war activists in the 1960s.

"Are you going to just drop a drone, a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?" he said.

Recommended: Boehner Wants Budget Deals 'Out in the Open'

Brennan still could be confirmed as early as today, as the nominee's detractors are speaking at length on the floor rather than objecting to a larger Republican agreement to allow a vote on Brennan's confirmation to go forward.

The Kentucky lawmaker, the son of outspoken former presidential candidate Ronaldo Paul, began speaking at 11:47 a.m. ET. After over an hour of continuous speech, he quipped that his throat was already becoming dry.

He acknowledged later that there aren't enough detractors in the Senate to block Brennan's confirmation, which will require 60 votes for approval.

"Ultimately I will not win," he said. "There are not enough votes.”

In addition to the assist from three colleagues on the floor, some lawmakers and pundits offered encouragement to Randy for raising concerns over the administration's policy.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., tweeted that the Kentucky senator "is asking a legit question of Holder. Why so hard for them to just give straight answer? Almost like they feel it is beneath them."

Randy's traditional or "talking" filibuster is the first use of the tactic since 2010, when Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont held the Senate floor for eight hours and 37 minutes to oppose Obama's proposed tax plan.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...licy-paul-filibustering-cia-pick-brennan?lite

It's not often I ever find myself on the same side as anything a guy named Randy.

 

[dutchfire]

What is the difference between a drone and a regular cop/government official shooting someone?

Imagine there was a cop at Newport, would you have liked him to shoot, or would you rather prefer to wait for a court case? Imagine there was a way to stop Columbine High, Virginia Tech or 9/11 by shooting first without waiting for a court case, which option would you pick?

So, in theory, when necessary and when no alternative exists, are there situations where the use of force by the federal government is justified without a court case? Yes, there are.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Oh wow Ron actually named his son Rand?
Anyway the excuse to fight American criminals like military target seems to be that it is tough to deal with them in foreign countries far away. Correct me if I am wrong.
Hence I would think that such an approach should be unthinkable on the US' own soil unless perhaps too prevent an immediate attack. Like letting fighters shoot down a hijacked plane.

edit: x-post with dutchfire: The police however is subject to investigation of any killing, because it is defined when lethal force is justified and it is supposed to be ensured that those rules are uphold. Rand seems to basically ask the same for drone strikes, which abroad are made use of without clear rules (or investigations) against American citizens.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Go RAND!

I hope Amaedus sees this and acknowledges that he's at least some good.

Oh wow Ron he actually named his son Rand?

Even I think that this is kind of lame.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What is the difference between a drone and a regular cop/government official shooting someone?

Imagine there was a cop at Newport, would you have liked him to shoot, or would you rather prefer to wait for a court case? Imagine there was a way to stop Columbine High, Virginia Tech or 9/11 by shooting first without waiting for a court case, which option would you pick?

So, in theory, when necessary and when no alternative exists, are there situations where the use of force by the federal government is justified without a court case? Yes, there are.

This x1000. I'm just going to copy/paste this into every single drone thread that pops up.

 

[GhostWriter16]

My problem isn't just that a drone was used, it was that there was never any proof provided as to the people's guilt. We're just supposed to assume that they are honest, which is bull anyway. If a drone was used against a person who had a gun out and was about to run into Virginia Tech or Columbine with a gun and there were no innocent bystanders, that's fine. Its defense, with an unusual weapon. But that never happens and someone in the Middle East is not a threat to us anyway.

 

[ace99]

This x1000. I'm just going to copy/paste this into every single drone thread that pops up.

What's the difference between a drone and a fighter dropping a bomb to end a high speed chase? What's the difference between using a cop for crowd control or using a tank? What's the difference between sending cops or sending a cruise missile?

 

[peter grimes]

Does anyone here remember the rumors that VP Cheney tried to order the USAF to shoot down an unresponsive jet liner on 9/11?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What's the difference between a drone and a fighter dropping a bomb to end a high speed chase? What's the difference between using a cop for crowd control or using a tank? What's the difference between sending cops or sending a cruise missile?

None really. You should use your best judgement as to what to use in each situation. Where a drone is appropriate isn't the same as where a tank is appropriate isn't the same as where a police officer is appropriate. All I'm saying is that it gets old hearing THERE'S NO PILOTS THEREFORE IT'S EVIL. People try and class drones in a completely different (and somehow inherently evil) catagory from other tools in the toolkit because they are drones and that's bunk, IMHO.

 

[GhostWriter16]

My reason for thinking its wrong has nothing to do with "There's no pilot."

 

[Murky]

Oh wow Ron actually named his son Rand?

Ayn Rand followers/Libertarians often seem to do this for some odd reason. Similar to Islamist naming their kid Mohammad I guess.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I would never name my kid after Ayn Rand, especially my male kid. I've considered (Not seriously) naming my kid "Ron Paul (Insert my last name" but I would never ever name my kid after Ayn Rand This I would say is the only absolutely insane thing that Ron has done

 

[hobbsyoyo]

My reason for thinking its wrong has nothing to do with "There's no pilot."

As far as I can tell, your reason for not liking them isn't any more rational than that. Enlighten me.

 

[peter grimes]

My reason for thinking its wrong has nothing to do with "There's no pilot."

Define "pilot"

This matters, so please don't ignore, OK?

 

[GhostWriter16]

As far as I can tell, your reason for not liking them isn't any more rational than that. Enlighten me.

I don't have a problem in theory with the use of drone technology. What I have a problem with is the arbitrary killing of Americans without trial, the arbitrary spying on Americans without trial, and thirdly, even if they're unsubstantiated accusations regarding these people being terrorists are correct, there's still a lot of collateral damage.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Define "pilot"

This matters, so please don't ignore, OK?

I have no idea. Hobbs said that people don't like them because "There's no pilot" (His words, so don't ask me, ask Hobbs.) I don't really care about the fact that they're unmanned. That has nothing to do with the fact that I'm opposed to it.

 

[peter grimes]

My reason for thinking its wrong has nothing to do with "There's no pilot."

Define "pilot"

This matters, so please don't ignore, OK?

I have no idea. Hobbs said that people don't like them because "There's no pilot" (His words, so don't ask me, ask Hobbs.) I don't really care about the fact that they're unmanned. That has nothing to do with the fact that I'm opposed to it.

I'm sorry, I missed the part that's bolded above.

Carry on, nothing to see here

 

[Murky]

The Drone technology itself is useful. The application of it by some unknown person without judicial review is worrying. The constitution is supposed to protect citizens from unlawful use of force by government officials. They are side stepping it in order or persecute people they deem a threat.

 

[Bugfatty300]

None really. You should use your best judgement as to what to use in each situation. Where a drone is appropriate isn't the same as where a tank is appropriate isn't the same as where a police officer is appropriate. All I'm saying is that it gets old hearing THERE'S NO PILOTS THEREFORE IT'S EVIL. People try and class drones in a completely different (and somehow inherently evil) catagory from other tools in the toolkit because they are drones and that's bunk, IMHO.

Well I think it's like people's concerns about police tasers, even though technology itself isn't the problem.

Manned operations carry a much higher risk than unmanned ones. So there are concerns that with the increase of unmanned capabilities there will be less incentive for governments to use such technology responsibly.

 

[Antilogic]

I agree with what Murky et al. have said--it's how the drones are being used that's the problem, not the drones themselves.

I'm both overjoyed that we have actual filibusters and kinda sad that Bernie Sanders has to share the stage with Rand Paul (I assume he uses the nickname for the obvious connection with Ayn Rand, even though it's not his given name).