Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, March 6, 2013
Politics Rand Paul Is Fillibustering John Brennan's Appointment as CIA Director
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Pledging to speak "until I can no longer speak," Kentucky Republican Rand Paul on Wednesday launched a Senate floor filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan to be the next CIA director.
Brennan still could be confirmed as early as this afternoon, as Paul is 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.
Paul 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.
Every so often, Ron Paul would do or say something—protest the war in Iraq, for example, or complain about American imperialism—that would get liberals nodding their head in assent. Looks like Rand is following in his daddy's footsteps by taking a very public stand against misuse of drones, which many liberals find to be a repulsive Obama Administration policy. The important to thing to remember, though, is that 99% of Senator Paul's other policies are offensive and dumb. This is a case of a stopped clock being right, not a sign of improvement.
1
I'd bet that Rand is filibustering in order to oppose Obama, not because he gives a shit about what drones do.
2
just because Roand Paul are 99and44/100s heartless cranks doesn't mean we shouldn't praise them for their rare proper action. especially when those who should be doing similarly (i'm looking at you Washington senators!) are too apparatchiked-up to join them.
3
What @1 said.
Besides, if you listen to the secret audiotape that WikiLeaks got from the NSA surveillance of Rand Paul, you'd know he has more skeletons in his closet than the average bear does.
Besides, if you listen to the secret audiotape that WikiLeaks got from the NSA surveillance of Rand Paul, you'd know he has more skeletons in his closet than the average bear does.
4
I'm no fan of Rand Paul, but I'm pretty sure he'd be opposed to drones regardless of who is in office. Whether he'd actually go to the point of filibustering the appointee of a GOP president seems less likely.
Given yesterday's decree from Eric Holder, I think this filibuster is actually pretty warranted.
Side note: as much as I don't like Paul's economics, I have to admire the pickle he puts GOP in. One one hand, they love anything anti-Obama, while on the other, it would be inconceivable that a mainstream Republican president wouldn't be using these drones for 'extrajudicial' killings
Given yesterday's decree from Eric Holder, I think this filibuster is actually pretty warranted.
Side note: as much as I don't like Paul's economics, I have to admire the pickle he puts GOP in. One one hand, they love anything anti-Obama, while on the other, it would be inconceivable that a mainstream Republican president wouldn't be using these drones for 'extrajudicial' killings
5
I'm with @2. I see your beloved Prez is meeting up with the Repugs at a "policy" conference. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r…
There goes social security & medicare (oops I mean those pesky "entitlements")!
You do know social security has NOTHING to do with deficit reduction, right?
Obama just owes his funders and wants to be the honcho (following in beloved Clinton's welfare cutting footsteps) who can take the biggest cut in the program. I paid all my life into SS and that belongs to ME, not Obama as a payoff to his rich buddies.
There goes social security & medicare (oops I mean those pesky "entitlements")!
You do know social security has NOTHING to do with deficit reduction, right?
Obama just owes his funders and wants to be the honcho (following in beloved Clinton's welfare cutting footsteps) who can take the biggest cut in the program. I paid all my life into SS and that belongs to ME, not Obama as a payoff to his rich buddies.
7
@6 You're fine with a drone flying over a town or city in the United States and killing someone who's been deemed a threat without trial?
Furthermore, you're fine with the precedent that sets for all future administrations?
Furthermore, you're fine with the precedent that sets for all future administrations?
8
Politics isn't about whether or not you like the guy sitting in the chair. Why not take allies where you find them?
9
Paul you sure about liberals not liking the program? A recent Wa Post Poll put public support at 80% and I believe lots of liberal support there.
10
I wish Democrats would filibuster the appointment due to the drone policy.... gotta give Rand credit on this on.
(PS: you can still call him a douche for all the other stuff!)
(PS: you can still call him a douche for all the other stuff!)
11
I agree with #1, but I noticed the drone policy wasn't repulsive enough for The Stranger not make postings last year asking readers to donate $$ to the Presient who did those drone killings.
So maybe you're not THAT repulsed by it Paul?
So maybe you're not THAT repulsed by it Paul?
12
What's more important: that Sen Paul is willing to take on the administration (albeit symbolically, here) on the issue of whether or not the government has the power to murder its own people--an issue that (insanely) puts him at odds with both his own party and apparently most of our "good liberal" senators--or that his stand on fiscal issues generally aligns with that of his party?
I gotta tell you...I really don't think that's a difficult question. And if you find that it is, you really should ask yourself why.
I gotta tell you...I really don't think that's a difficult question. And if you find that it is, you really should ask yourself why.
13
considering that america has always had the alibity to murder it's own people, and has frequently done so, with little or no consequence, using drones on anwar al-awlaki isn't the line in the sand for me. its business as usual.
using them on american soil is theoretical but inevitable. this is the future, folks.
using them on american soil is theoretical but inevitable. this is the future, folks.
14
The Atlantic's blog has an embedded live feed.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/…
I've got the day off & it's pretty crappy outside weather-wise. Really hoping it turns into one of those old school ones where he goes completely off-topic and starts talking about his home life and whatnot.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/…
I've got the day off & it's pretty crappy outside weather-wise. Really hoping it turns into one of those old school ones where he goes completely off-topic and starts talking about his home life and whatnot.
15
Haha -- Marco Rubio just got the floor to pose a question and started with, "Senator I know you've been here for a while. I hope you keep a drink of water close by..."
16
"This is a case of a stopped clock being right" brilliant, not sure if its yours or not? Whatever the case may be I've never heard it before in this context. It's going in my notebook.
17
Prediction: Paul will come off looking like an even bigger dipshit than he actually is, and his laughable hopes for the Republican nomination will be dead.
18
Paul is the idiot son of an idiot.
If you're worried about peremptory execution by American authorities on American soil, your focus shouldn't be on fucking drones. It's already well within operational guidelines to shoot to kill anyone who poses an imminent threat to a law-enforcement officer. And, to make things simple and tidy, members of any number of law enforcement organizations seem to have access to "throw-aways," largely-untraceable handguns which can be dropped at the scene when an unarmed suspect (oops!) is killed. Drones cost serious money. Throw-aways are collected for free in the course of ordinary police work (if you're ordinarily corrupt).
Likewise, you don't need a drone to assassinate an American citizen in America. You can just drive up to his house in a police car and knock on the door.
That said, very few of these cases happen on purpose. Mostly it's tragic mistakes that then get covered up by those unwilling to deal with the publicity of it. The vast majority of our law enforcement officers try to do the right thing most of the time, and the FBI does a better job of it than most local police departments. Sure, there are scum out there, but that's a bottom-up problem more than it's top-down.
If you're worried about peremptory execution by American authorities on American soil, your focus shouldn't be on fucking drones. It's already well within operational guidelines to shoot to kill anyone who poses an imminent threat to a law-enforcement officer. And, to make things simple and tidy, members of any number of law enforcement organizations seem to have access to "throw-aways," largely-untraceable handguns which can be dropped at the scene when an unarmed suspect (oops!) is killed. Drones cost serious money. Throw-aways are collected for free in the course of ordinary police work (if you're ordinarily corrupt).
Likewise, you don't need a drone to assassinate an American citizen in America. You can just drive up to his house in a police car and knock on the door.
That said, very few of these cases happen on purpose. Mostly it's tragic mistakes that then get covered up by those unwilling to deal with the publicity of it. The vast majority of our law enforcement officers try to do the right thing most of the time, and the FBI does a better job of it than most local police departments. Sure, there are scum out there, but that's a bottom-up problem more than it's top-down.
19
@18-There's a rather large difference between leniency for police who kill people mistakenly (or "mistakenly", as the case may be) and a policy that explicitly empowers the state to execute a citizen--especially on US soil--completely outside the judicial process.
But more to the point: why the fuck can't I worry about both?
But more to the point: why the fuck can't I worry about both?
20
I'm not a fan of what's passed off as libertarian in this country, nor a fan of the Pauls. But this is good. Congress should be asserting its authority more--and for the right reasons--not less.
But why the yammering about how Rand's economics and states rights nonsense views are obviously flawed? Be "practical," he's an ad hoc ally. Isn't this the same line you've fed to "liberals" who take issues with Obama's crypto-GOP policies when he may in fact do something not in total subservience of his funders and the destruction of the New Deal?
But why the yammering about how Rand's economics and states rights nonsense views are obviously flawed? Be "practical," he's an ad hoc ally. Isn't this the same line you've fed to "liberals" who take issues with Obama's crypto-GOP policies when he may in fact do something not in total subservience of his funders and the destruction of the New Deal?
21
@19 My point is, why would the state need an explicit empowering policy at all? The simple fact they don't want to talk about the issue (which opens up a whole giant can of worms, Congressional-testimony-wise, regarding their foreign operations) doesn't mean they are empowered to do this in the U.S.
Killer drones are used in foreign theaters where we're not allowed to operate on the ground, and are essentially weapons of war. We can operate anywhere on the ground in the U.S. now. We can just send a cop to your house, or if you're enough of a well-armed threat, a T-1 tank from your local National Guard.
Worrying about domestic use of killer drones is... just... Have you even considered the possibility that it's irrational?
Killer drones are used in foreign theaters where we're not allowed to operate on the ground, and are essentially weapons of war. We can operate anywhere on the ground in the U.S. now. We can just send a cop to your house, or if you're enough of a well-armed threat, a T-1 tank from your local National Guard.
Worrying about domestic use of killer drones is... just... Have you even considered the possibility that it's irrational?
23
99% of the time I think Rand Paul is a complete douche.
But I have to respect him in this case. Not only for questioning the use of drones on US soil, but also for actually conducting an honest-to-god, talk-till-you-drop filibuster. The change in the senate rules that allowed the phone-it-in filibuster has allowed far too many bills to be blocked without a vote because the senate can't get a filibuster-proof majority. If they are going to allow a minority party to filibuster a bill and hold it up, then they aught to do a real filibuster. They should be subject to at least a little inconvenience to stick to their convictions.
But I have to respect him in this case. Not only for questioning the use of drones on US soil, but also for actually conducting an honest-to-god, talk-till-you-drop filibuster. The change in the senate rules that allowed the phone-it-in filibuster has allowed far too many bills to be blocked without a vote because the senate can't get a filibuster-proof majority. If they are going to allow a minority party to filibuster a bill and hold it up, then they aught to do a real filibuster. They should be subject to at least a little inconvenience to stick to their convictions.
25
@18
Wow your tongue is really up the asshole of authoritarian murderers.
No wonder you choose to live in nanny Bloomberg's little fiefdom of a police state.
Wow your tongue is really up the asshole of authoritarian murderers.
No wonder you choose to live in nanny Bloomberg's little fiefdom of a police state.
26
@21--I'm not really sure I understand where you are coming from, here. You've brought up a lot of (tangentially related, at most) concerns about policing in this country--which I completely share with you. What does that have to do with the Obama administration's recalcitrance in answering legitimate questions about where and how they will use lethal technology? Do you think this discussion somehow undermines another, more important one?
Seriously, I don't get it. From where I'm sitting, the drone issue is just one part of a larger conversation about the powers we cede to the state, particularly in the context of the war on terror (or whatever the hell we're calling it these days.)
The bottom line here is that I do not trust this administration when it tells me to just trust that they will use lethal force judiciously. Just as I did not trust the previous one (and I feel pretty vindicated about that.) And as I do not anticipate trusting the next one. Missions creep. State power has a nasty tendency to ratchet in one direction.
And (to get back to where I part with Mr. Constant on this post)...all of this just seems a hell of a lot more important than the extent to which Rand Paul is an economic Randian. I care about life and death a great deal more than I care about marginal tax rates or how entitlements are structured. And I'm genuinely confused as to why so many of my liberal friends seem unable or unwilling to see that distinction more clearly.
Seriously, I don't get it. From where I'm sitting, the drone issue is just one part of a larger conversation about the powers we cede to the state, particularly in the context of the war on terror (or whatever the hell we're calling it these days.)
The bottom line here is that I do not trust this administration when it tells me to just trust that they will use lethal force judiciously. Just as I did not trust the previous one (and I feel pretty vindicated about that.) And as I do not anticipate trusting the next one. Missions creep. State power has a nasty tendency to ratchet in one direction.
And (to get back to where I part with Mr. Constant on this post)...all of this just seems a hell of a lot more important than the extent to which Rand Paul is an economic Randian. I care about life and death a great deal more than I care about marginal tax rates or how entitlements are structured. And I'm genuinely confused as to why so many of my liberal friends seem unable or unwilling to see that distinction more clearly.
27
@25 Ha. If you think Bloomberg is an authoritarian, you never lived under Rudy Giuliani. Bloomberg has been a breath of fresh air and relatively honest and open government by comparison to the last several of his predecessors of both parties.
@26 If there was any sign that the government ever used or even contemplating using lethal drone technology here on American soil, I'd be joining you at the ramparts. There isn't. There won't be. They'll never need to. It's a preposterous speculation.
I am very, very uncomfortable about the use of drones overseas, but the reality is, we do the exact same thing with special forces and trained assassins, and have done so for generations. Whether that should be part of a judicial process, I'm going to have to say no. It's just part of foreign, military target management. It's a filthy business, but it always has been. As long as we're killing people, and willing to continue to do that, it's going to be a problem. The worst part of killer drones is not that we use them to target particular individuals, it's that they're incapable of not causing collateral damage and killing innocents. But, war is hell, and we should try to stop waging it as much as we do or can.
@26 If there was any sign that the government ever used or even contemplating using lethal drone technology here on American soil, I'd be joining you at the ramparts. There isn't. There won't be. They'll never need to. It's a preposterous speculation.
I am very, very uncomfortable about the use of drones overseas, but the reality is, we do the exact same thing with special forces and trained assassins, and have done so for generations. Whether that should be part of a judicial process, I'm going to have to say no. It's just part of foreign, military target management. It's a filthy business, but it always has been. As long as we're killing people, and willing to continue to do that, it's going to be a problem. The worst part of killer drones is not that we use them to target particular individuals, it's that they're incapable of not causing collateral damage and killing innocents. But, war is hell, and we should try to stop waging it as much as we do or can.
30
@27--I think we agree on more than we don't. And I sincerely hope you are right about drones in the US.
31
It's pretty sad that while the filibuster is being supported by 9 or 10 republicans, only one democrat (Ron Wyden) is willing to stand up for the most basic principle of civil liberty.
The mere fact that Obama wants to appoint Brennan should remove any doubt about about Obama's true nature. He is not a progressive; he's not even a moderate. He is a right-wing piece of shit who tortures whistle-blowers and loves to slaughter civilians in Pakistan. If you think the drone war is in any way just, consider Obama's use of "double-tap" strikes--- launching a strike, waiting for first-responders to rush in to help the wounded, then launching another strike killing the rescuers (a very serious war crime which the UN is investigating). Or consider the strike targeting a teenager in Pakistan (along with his 12-year-old cousin) whose act of "terrorism" consisted of videotaping drone activity for a human rights group. Pakistanis are afraid to send their kids to school, because they believe the schools will be drone targets. When the British slaughtered civilians in Derry on Bloody Sunday, they inspired a transformational surge of recruitment and public support for the IRA. This is exactly what we are doing in Pakistan for Al-Qaeda. Obama and Brennan are guaranteeing that for generations to come, lots and lots of people around the world will hate us enough to fly planes into buildings.
The mere fact that Obama wants to appoint Brennan should remove any doubt about about Obama's true nature. He is not a progressive; he's not even a moderate. He is a right-wing piece of shit who tortures whistle-blowers and loves to slaughter civilians in Pakistan. If you think the drone war is in any way just, consider Obama's use of "double-tap" strikes--- launching a strike, waiting for first-responders to rush in to help the wounded, then launching another strike killing the rescuers (a very serious war crime which the UN is investigating). Or consider the strike targeting a teenager in Pakistan (along with his 12-year-old cousin) whose act of "terrorism" consisted of videotaping drone activity for a human rights group. Pakistanis are afraid to send their kids to school, because they believe the schools will be drone targets. When the British slaughtered civilians in Derry on Bloody Sunday, they inspired a transformational surge of recruitment and public support for the IRA. This is exactly what we are doing in Pakistan for Al-Qaeda. Obama and Brennan are guaranteeing that for generations to come, lots and lots of people around the world will hate us enough to fly planes into buildings.
32
@30 One more thing I wanted to add...
Don't confuse "recalcitrance to answer" with "legitimate questions." What's been going on in these hearings is a mix of political theater, scab-picking, and chess. The on-shore questions are intentionally inflammatory. However, if the Administration answers those, they'll be followed by additional drill-down involving international policy and classified overseas stuff. I'm sure they've calculated that they're better off just not answering anything on this. Congress gets oversight and budgeting. They don't get micromanagement. Trying to make political hay over this isn't unforgivable, it's just partisan business-as-usual in American politics.
But, do you really want the Administration answering questions in public that might end up overthrowing foreign leaders that are stealth allies, or semi-allies? If they're willing to take political heat in order to protect foreign assets, I say let them.
But also, as I said, we should really, really stop waging so much war.
Don't confuse "recalcitrance to answer" with "legitimate questions." What's been going on in these hearings is a mix of political theater, scab-picking, and chess. The on-shore questions are intentionally inflammatory. However, if the Administration answers those, they'll be followed by additional drill-down involving international policy and classified overseas stuff. I'm sure they've calculated that they're better off just not answering anything on this. Congress gets oversight and budgeting. They don't get micromanagement. Trying to make political hay over this isn't unforgivable, it's just partisan business-as-usual in American politics.
But, do you really want the Administration answering questions in public that might end up overthrowing foreign leaders that are stealth allies, or semi-allies? If they're willing to take political heat in order to protect foreign assets, I say let them.
But also, as I said, we should really, really stop waging so much war.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (32) RSS