Sen. Rand Paul has ended his day-long filibuster against President Obama’s claim to be able to kill any U.S. citizen on his own authority without criminal charge or conviction. What was most striking about this principled stand is the virtual total absence of Democrats in speaking out against Obama. Just this week, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that this policy could include killing citizens on U.S. soil with drones. Yet, the Democrats worked to stop not the kill list policy but Paul’s filibuster. Obama apologists have attacked Rand for some of his other positions to avoid dealing with the fact that Obama is claiming the powers of an Imperial President. I do not agree with Paul on many things, but I commend him for this stand and condemn those who remained silent, again, in the face of this authoritarian policy of Obama.
The filibuster was to block the nomination of John Brennan who has been opposed by most civil libertarians due to his connection to the torture program and other abuses. His more senior colleagues, like John McCain, told him to “calm down” — telling advice from our political leaders that authoritarian power is nothing to get upset about if it does not affect you. Lindsey Graham stated that against up against the unilateral killing of citizens “ridiculous” and just not how things are done in Washington.
Rand fell short of the record of former Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
He shared some time with other Republican senators. However, after five hours, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to limit the remaining time.
The lack of opposition to Obama’s kill list policy is a national disgrace. It shows the triumph of a cult of personality within the Democratic ranks where both members and voters have chosen Obama over long-standing values of civil liberties that once defined their party.
Source: CNN
McCain’s take on Paul’s filibuster
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/rand-paul-john-mccain-filibuster_n_2829358.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl12%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D280466
Rand Paul’s Filibuster Belittled By John McCain As ‘Simply False’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/obama-drone-strikes_n_2830174.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D280605
Obama Has No Authority For Drone Strikes Against Americans On U.S. Soil, White House Says
** Bron 1, March 7, 2013 at 1:19 pm
“Yet, the Democrats worked to stop not the kill list policy but Paul’s filibuster.”
What a position to be put into, the dems are now the party of death.
2014 RNC mid-term campaign-Vote for us, we wont kill you.
This is the beginning of the end of the Obama Administration as a viable political force and of republicans like McCain and Graham.
**
Bron,
I’m not sure why much of the Dem/Rep leadership have decided to destroy their political careers & reputations with the gun grabbing/murder of peaceful citizens by drones & other American Hating type crap, but they have.
They’re done now, almost anyway.
I’ve now a pretty large list of those I’ve lost all/most respect/support for.
Obama, McCain, Graham, Leahy, Liven, Feinsteinium, etc..
And I’m disappointed with the other Idiots like Micheal Moore, Jon Stewart, etc. & even great actors like Justin Hoffman.
I find it easiest to always side with the Founding Dudes 1st in any debate, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, etc….
Yes, we are still attempting to correct their few amount of errors like Slavery, it’s went from actual slavery to now a Debt Slavery/ Usury type slavery.
As an over all body of work 220+ years ago & we still have no one that comes close to besting it.
Nothing more then some monkeys like Reagan, Clinton, the Bush family, Obama, Wallst Bank/Insur trash etc.,, throwing poo at it every day is the best they can muster.
And NY gov Como can kiss a run for Prez goodbye!
“Rand Paul Filibuster Leaves Senate Democrats Struggling To Explain Absence ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/rand-paul-filibuster-democrats_n_2830850.html
Excerpt:
“Wyden, the lone joiner, said that he could only speak for himself when asked why more Democrats didn’t join. “I thought it was an opportunity to demonstrate that on some of these key issues with respect to balance between liberty and security, there are progressives and conservatives that can find some common ground,” he told reporters.
“I think you’re going to start seeing the emergence of what I sometimes call around here a checks-and-balances caucus, and there’ll be a lot of Democrats in it,” Wyden added.”
Mike S:
That sounds right.
Mike Spindell 1, March 7, 2013 at 3:37 pm wrote:
“This does not rule out using other methods for executing citizens without charge or trial and that is the heart of the (illegally) claimed Executive power. Dead by drone, dead by SWAT Team or SpecOps is still dead. The tools to accomplish that are secondary to that fundamental usurpation of both habeas corpus and our other rights under the Bill of Rights as well as the usurpation of the powers of the judiciary in violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The entire rationale of the Separation of Powers is so that no one man can be judge, jury and executioner by keeping the powers of government diluted by having the three branches serve as checks and balances on the powers of each other. (-Gene H.)
In short, Holder’s answer is still insufficient guarantee that the rights of citizens to due process won’t be violated based on Imperial Presidential fiat, only a weak assurance that drones won’t be used.” (-Gene H.)
Gene,
Of course I agree, it’s just that your comment bears repeating again and again and…………………………………………..!
——-
I’m in agreement, as well, and will repeat it, per your excellent suggestion, Mike S.
The President is still the one who has the authority to declare who is and who isn’t a combatant, under AUMF or the Patriot Act, so Holder hasn’t changed anything.
Words of wisdom from the movie “Airplane!”
Jack Kirkpatrick: “Shanna, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let ’em crash.”
Tough to care these days.
Thursday, Mar 7, 2013 01:50 PM EST
Liberals should proudly cheer on Rand Paul
If he’s right on principle, progressives should back him up — even if he’s wrong on everything else. Here’s why
By David Sirota
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/07/liberals_should_proudly_cheer_on_rand_paul/
America is shamed that only Rand Paul is talking about drone executions
Where are the civil libertarians in the president’s party that we must rely on a Tea Party Republican to champion this issue?
by Amy Goodman
Thursday 7 March 2013 09.52 EST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/07/america-shamed-rand-paul-drone-executions
Excerpt:
As Senator Paul filibustered, Will Fitzgibbon wrote from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London:
“Last month, we launched a new drones project: Naming the Dead. The aim of this project is to identify as many of the more than 2,500 victims of US drone strikes in Pakistan as possible. Given we currently do not know the identities of 80% of those killed, we believe this is a crucial and missing step to having a more transparent drones debate …
“With all the attention being recently paid to American citizens killed by drones and with the drone debate growing, we thought it would be a good time to remind ourselves of the individual human stories of drone victims. Those we know about and those we don’t.”
Barack Obama and John Brennan direct the drone strikes that are killing thousands of civilians. It doesn’t make us safer. It makes whole populations, from Yemen to Pakistan, hate us. Senator Paul’s outrage with the president’s claimed right to kill US citizens is entirely appropriate. That there is not more outrage at the thousands killed around the globe is shameful … and dangerous.
• Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column
Teji,
Re-read my responses. I never claimed you said anything. I’m simply addressing the topic directly: namely that the issue is more critical than partisanship as it is Constitutionally substantive and that Holder’s letter is woefully insufficient and sidesteps the actual issue in favor of addressing tool choice.
mespo,
Copy that.
Teji,
And? Just because the GOP pointed to the problem as framed by the use of drones that does not change the underlying and legitimate Constitutional issue: can the President/Executive Branch unilaterally kill citizens without due process? According to the Constitution, the answer is plainly no regardless of the method used. I’m not a partisan. I loathe both major parties equally. However, as a legal matter, this issue has meat on the bone irrespective of how it is brought up and by whom. Just because the GOP is as responsible for the expanding unitary Executive as the DNC is does not invalidate their criticism or the very real Constitutional underpinnings of the issue.
Gene,
Give yourself one more chance to read my first post again. I never said anything that you have implied.:-)
As I mentioned on the prior thread, I am no fan of Rand Paul but I do believe his was a principled stand. What is most insidious about this opinion letter from Holder is the almost cavalier approach to constitutional law. It goes like this: “You ask if killing Americans on American soil without benefit of due process is possible? I say it’s not our policy but I can’t rule it out. Surely there must be some scenario where it would be possible. I’ll let the President know when I see it if I’m asked. Maybe 9/11 or Pearl Harbor might qualify” Really?
Rather than taking the approach that no situation short of civil war could justify such an attack, Holder is looking for loopholes. That may be good lawyering to keep your options open but when those options come at the expense of the lives of the American people you’d think his politics meter would go off blaring red alerts all over the place. Holder is a public official charged with doing everything he can to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” not Barack Obama.
It seems a refresher course in civics might be in order.
“Rather than taking the approach that no situation short of civil war could justify such an attack, Holder is looking for loopholes.”
Mark,
Didn’t John Choon Yoo play that role for GW Bush?
SWM, I said the same about Holder a day or two ago. However, he serves his purpose w/ this administration as he did w/ the Clinton Administration..”How high should I jump Mr. President?” Or, I should say, “How low can I go?”
Teji,
The entire contents of the short letter you reference is:
““It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”
This does not rule out using other methods for executing citizens without charge or trial and that is the heart of the (illegally) claimed Executive power. Dead by drone, dead by SWAT Team or SpecOps is still dead. The tools to accomplish that are secondary to that fundamental usurpation of both habeas corpus and our other rights under the Bill of Rights as well as the usurpation of the powers of the judiciary in violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The entire rationale of the Separation of Powers is so that no one man can be judge, jury and executioner by keeping the powers of government diluted by having the three branches serve as checks and balances on the powers of each other.
In short, Holder’s answer is still insufficient guarantee that the rights of citizens to due process won’t be violated based on Imperial Presidential fiat, only a weak assurance that drones won’t be used.
Gene,
Please read my very first comment about the topic.
“This does not rule out using other methods for executing citizens without charge or trial and that is the heart of the (illegally) claimed Executive power. Dead by drone, dead by SWAT Team or SpecOps is still dead. The tools to accomplish that are secondary to that fundamental usurpation of both habeas corpus and our other rights under the Bill of Rights as well as the usurpation of the powers of the judiciary in violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The entire rationale of the Separation of Powers is so that no one man can be judge, jury and executioner by keeping the powers of government diluted by having the three branches serve as checks and balances on the powers of each other.
In short, Holder’s answer is still insufficient guarantee that the rights of citizens to due process won’t be violated based on Imperial Presidential fiat, only a weak assurance that drones won’t be used.”
Gene,
Of course I agree, it’s just that your comment bears repeating again and again and…………………………………………..!
It’s time to look at the whole rotten mess. We need Congressional hearings.
January 21, 2013
Time to Target the Real Terrorists
The Return of COINTELPRO?
by TOM MCNAMARA
“Democracies die behind closed doors” – Judge Damon J. Keith
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/21/the-return-of-cointelpro/
Excerpts:
For 15 years (1956-1971) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ran a broad and highly coordinated domestic intelligence / counterintelligence program known as COINTELPRO (COunter INTELligence PROgrams). What was originally deemed as a justifiable effort to protect the US during the Cold War from Soviet and Communist threats and infiltration, soon devolved into a program for suppressing domestic dissent and spying on American citizens. Approximately 20,000 people were investigated by the FBI based only on their political views and beliefs. Most were never suspected of having committed any crime.
The reasoning behind the program, as detailed in a 1976 Senate report, was that the FBI had “the duty to do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order.” The fact that the “perceived threats” were usually American citizens engaging in constitutionally protected behaviour was apparently overlooked. The stated goal of COINTELPRO was to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” any individual or group deemed to be subversive or a threat to the established power structure.
The FBI’s techniques were often extreme, with the agency being complicit in the murder and assassination of political dissidents, or having people sent away to prison for life. Some of the more “moderate” actions that were used were blackmail, spreading false rumors, intimidation and harassment. It has been argued that the US is unique in that it is the only Western industrialized democracy to have engaged in such a wide spread and well organized domestic surveillance program. It finally came to an end in 1971 when it was threatened with public exposure.
Or did it?
In a stunning revelation from the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), it appears that COINTELPRO is alive and well. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, PCJF was able to obtain documents showing how the FBI was treating the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, from its inception, as a potential criminal and domestic terrorist threat. This despite the FBI’s own acknowledgement that the OWS organizers themselves planned on engaging in peaceful and popular protest and did not “condone the use of violence.”
The documents, while heavily redacted, give a clear picture of how the FBI was using its offices and agents across the country as early as August 2011 to engage in a massive surveillance scheme against OWS. This was almost a month before any actual protests took place or encampments were set up (the most famous being the one in New York City’s Zuccotti Park).
The FBI’s documents show a government agency at its most paranoid. It considered all planned protests, and the individuals involved, as potential threats. Most disturbing of all, there is talk (p. 61) of the government being ready to “engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary” and perhaps needing to formulate a plan “to kill the leadership [of the protest groups] via suppressed sniper rifles.”
Furthermore, the documents reveal a close and intricate partnership between the federal government on one side and banks and private businesses on the other.
…
The FBI’s stated mission regarding America’s security is to “develop a comprehensive understanding of the threats and penetrate national and transnational networks that have a desire and capability to harm us.”
The American people would be far better served by their government if, instead of wasting millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours harassing peaceful protesters, it spent a fraction of that time and money investigating, and bringing to justice, the people responsible for the engineered destruction of the American economy, and by extension, American society.
You know. The real terrorists.
Re: Gary T
I’ll take your word for it that Rand Paul supports 90% of the Civil Rights Act except he believes the private business part is unconstitutional but in my view it is constitutional. Any law is interpreted by both the “letter” of the law but also the “spirit” of the law – the spirit of the law is sometimes more important as to what the letter really means (since written law always has loopholes that can be exploited). The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause [Article Six] that also has both the “letter” and “spirit”. When the “letter” of the Constitution is interpreted using the Preamble or as a whole there is an honest argument about that section of the voting rights act. African-Americans that traveled by car across country could ‘t stop at a restaurant, hotel or restroom, etc. If they used the restroom or slept in their cars there were also laws to arrest them for doing that. I there were facilities many times the plumbing didn’t work, etc. Not saying your totally wrong but I see it as constitutional and a necessary protection. Today there are heterosexual (straight) kids that are kicked out of some private schools (receiving federal dollars) because their parents are gay – essentially punishing the kids because of their parents. Seems constitutional to me.