I just knew one of them would filibuster. I did not believe the crap coming out of the Senate that confirmation would appear to be an easier road then Chuck Hagel.

So you don't think that this issue is important?

@Eric Now how is that not fear-mongering?

Now Dick Cheney holds his tongue?

I'm not sure whether I'm more shocked or disgusted that I agree with Rand Paul on this. Probably both. I'd like to blame it on my lunch at this point.

I have a real hard time with the suspension of due process. Had a problem with it under Bush. Still have a problem with it under Obama. I can understand when direct action is immediately needed to safeguard the country, but in situations where that isn't the exact course we have to take I would like to at least know the case was reviewed prior to shooting a hellfire missile up a Honda Civic's tailpipe.

I feel like I need to take another shower now.

@ News or propaganda:

You're joking, right?

I mean, here we are, commenting on liberal news media coverage of Rand Paul's filibuster, and ...

I give up.

adam -- it is the American way.

#1.15 Repojam - I agree, even Paul is right sometimes.

Broken clock correct twice a day...

I guess in Rand's case even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

TO: Repojam who wrote:

"I'm not sure whether I'm more shocked or disgusted that I agree with Rand Paul on this. Probably both. I'd like to blame it on my lunch at this point.

I have a real hard time with the suspension of due process. Had a problem with it under Bush. Still have a problem with it under Obama. I can understand when direct action is immediately needed to safeguard the country, but in situations where that isn't the exact course we have to take I would like to at least know the case was reviewed prior to shooting a hellfire missile up a Honda Civic's tailpipe.

I feel like I need to take another shower now."

Cute, funny, and I agree.

There are folks here in California who like to play games with the "terrorist" laws by falsely accusing someone of "threatening to kill" them, then the cops lock up whoever they claim spoke those words, and it's a big deal for the innocent person because they get locked up on the spot and are forced to fight in a dysfunctional criminal justice system against a blatant lie. Eventually it all gets dismissed by the court, but what if they were fire bombed instead based on blatant lies?

Now, if we change that to a "drone attack" caused by false accusations, that would be perpetuating not only a lie, but also a crime, and probably causing a wrongful death.

Thankfully, someone is speaking for those unable or dim witted.

Say what you will about Rand... he is the only Congressmen to propose a bill for term limits. That right there speaks volumes about him. He isn't your typical politician into screwing everyone for as long has he can. If we had term limits we would have people in DC that would actually get something done.

There are circumstances in which I think we would all agree that police and even citizens can lawfully use deadly force without resorting to due process.

Is it the fact that we're talking about drones that makes this different?

I'll grant you that we need to be having a debate about what circumstances would make a drone strike appropriate, but filibustering a Cabinet appointment does nothing to further that debate.

Arguably, drone strikes on foreign soil fall within the President's discretion as Commander in Chief, but there is no doubt that Congress itself has the power to define the lawful use of deadly force against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Besides, under current law as I understand it, neither the CIA nor the military can act against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, so filibustering the DCIA over this issue is doubly pointless.

RonB from Pittsburgh

I'll grant you that we need to be having a debate about what circumstances would make a drone strike appropriate, but filibustering a Cabinet appointment does nothing to further that debate.

Normally I would agree with this, but Brennan's ideas on drones go back a little bit too far for me to just brush off. This isn't the Chuck "I had nothing to do with Benghazi but let's get a filibuster for me" Hagel situation.

This is quite a bit different, at least for me. Suggesting drone strikes for Americans with no trial, no due process, I just can't look past that. I can understand a lot of ideological debates occurring and the constant name calling, but taking the life of an American without a trial who wasn't in the process of committing a crime at the time or under some extremely severe circumstances at the time just won't fly with me.

Good thing I'm not a Senator (for about a million reasons... obviously) and having to agree with Rand Paul. I could imagine the comfortable position of people seeing me about to lose my lunch for the entire time I'm speaking.

This is one I'd prefer to have a real conversation about and have some questions answered before the chance to vote comes up.

I am what many would describe as a libtard - I also think Rand Paul is a disgrace to KY (I can say that as I live in KY) but as someone said even a blind squirrel finds a nut. IN this case Sen Paul is conducting a traditional talking filibuster, IMHO all filibusters should be handled this way, no Senator should be able to hold up legislation or an appointment without having to actually talk it to death. SO first attaboy for Sen Paul from me.

He has alos chosen a topic that should be critical to all liberals and true Americans. No government should be able to kill their citizens without due process, I can sort of understand if that citizen has actively taken up arms and supports activities that are detrimental to their home country. But he asked a legitimate question - what about AMerican Citizens targeted on American soil, no way should this even be considered, and the administration whiffed on the answer. If there had been drones in the late 60's and early 70's dont tell me both Johnson and Nixon would not have considered the use against those they thought were a threat.

Ron B from Pittsburg - neoither the President nor Congresshas the right under our constitution can abrogate the individuals right to due process - and using drones would be that type of event. Also he is filibustering the DCIA because it is the CIA that employs drones overseas to take out AMericans, and even if the law does not allow the CIA to act in the US itself you wont convince me they actually abide by that law. (And the military can act against US Citizens on US Soil - refer to 1954 when EIsenhower called out either the 101 or 82 Airborne to force the Little ROck School integration - that was acting against US Citizens on US Soil.)

American Girl-724855

TO: MIke-680333 who wrote:

"Say what you will about Rand... he is the only Congressmen to propose a bill for term limits. That right there speaks volumes about him..."

He what? Both Rand Paul and Mitch McConnel are from Kentucky, which apparently doesn't have "term limits" because McConnell has been in the Senate for a very long time.

So you must be saying that the Kentucky Congressmen support term limits for others, but no term limits for them personally.

Um...term limits for US Senators must be set at the national level via amendment. And, as a US Senator, he cannot propose any legislation for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

give & take

What in the world have you imagined in your little fantasies that the Gubment Gunna Do? It really gets old hearing you silly people cry that your rights/privacy are going to be violated. We have not been attacked on our soil since 9/11 so they are doing something right! Chill dude...

Can you define "you people" for me? Just curious which crowd you're trying to lump me into. Thanks.

We haven't been attacked on our soil since 9/11, that's a true point. So why are we over a decade later now saying "Uh, look. If we have to use a remote control plane to take out one of our own, that's a-ok!"?

The fifth and fourteenth amendments both have clauses related to due process. It's not so much about the drone strikes, it's putting american citizens to death without due process and not in the process of stopping direct action that I have a problem with.

Having Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul as their representatives speaks volumes about the folks in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell has been in the Senate since 1985, in addition to being in government since the 70's during that time he has managed to become one of the wealthiest member in Congress...longevity pays off.

GO RAND PAUL!!!!! Good for you and THANK YOU! Get it on the record. He deserve a "Medal of Honor" for what he's doing.

This is not a "tactic", as stated in the Article, because what he's doing has TRUE regard for the most fundamental, The Constitution and one of its CORNERSTONES.

photo opbama has already executed two American citizens over seas without trial or conviction as a test. No one raised a fuss so now he has his sights on American citizens in the US. The Constitution is under attack and those who have sworn to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic need to take action now.

@KC

We are not a democracy, old harry knows it, time to tell his supporters.

Between the unconstitutional presidential proclamations made into laws (search the internet for public papers of the president) you will find they all have passed laws that are unconstitutional and they can even use chemical weapons on American citizens. The us supreme court votes unconstitutionally all the time and we have totally lost the constitution in America, plus:

in 1905 or so drivers licenses were voluntary and free; social security was a choice not mandatory; trial by jury required evidence - not circumstantial; a prosecutor could not dream up what he wants and present it to a jury as if it is evidence; the constitution says ' a right to bear arms ' - it does not say except anything or anytime and they have made it so perverted that the exceptions are if you've ever been convicted of a crime even if it is a minor offense now they want to make it where you can't own a weapon if you've ever got mad at someone yet the gov can get mad at anyone and bomb the he-- out of them killing millions.

give us back our constitution!!!!!!!!!!!

So Sarah you are now anti-constitution?

Eric, those people are in the act of committing a crime, that is different, then targeting an American citizen because somebody calls him a terrorist.

Have you people gone MAD? You are now giving up your rights to a jury trial because some suspects you of something?

Based on the comments by American Girl, Seeking Sanity, and Eric they are self admitted communists and thus a threat to our way of life. They should legally be taken out by a drone to defend our country.

And if you argue with that statement you are hypocrite.

If any of you would actually listen to this live on C-Span, you might find you agree with him. Republicans and Democrats.

Job1 like him or not he is standing up for ALL American citizens right to a fair trial

And for that he is a wacko or a member of an apocalyptic cult?

Yet those of your ilk want that bastard that took down the World Trade Centers to have a trial.

You people truly have lost your fickin minds.

Good job, Rand Paul! Protecting the Constitution should be first and foremost in the minds of those in elected office, otherwise, why are they there?

This is about the administration killing Americans on American soil without due process.

p111,

Can you tell us who has been killed?

The point is, the government has given themselves the right.

This isn't partisan, it is precedent. Think if you want this power in the other party's hands. Would you libs want want this power in Dick Cheney's hands? Politics are cyclical. One the party do do not agree with will be in power. Do you want them to have the power to blow you up from the sky if they feel your thoughts are a danger with no due process?

I hope Rand Paul stands in the well for a month ... this is about a American principles .. not whose party is in the White House ... The precedent set with the "drone policy" will come back and bite us in the ass in the future ... When remote controlled bombs (drones) begin flying around your neighborhood, as part of the "Police State" that is increasingly growing in this country ... it will being used by both political parties ...

John Brennen is a horrible choice to run "the Company" (CIA) .. The agency should never be run by a insider ... a political hack is even better than that! ... at least he ..the hack .. has a different perspective

Run outside and hold up a sign showing your party affiliation and see if it helps ...

Thats why we are at this crossroads,..... Americans just give up their rights .... as the politicians sit back and laughing at just how gullible and ignorant the American public is as a whole ... as they delude you into submission ..

once a precedent is established ... it never turns back .... they just keep tightening the screws .... and redefining the meaning ... till your liberty & rights are GONE!

"FAREWELL ... The Rights of Man....."

nwnative

Is daddy Ron Paul proud of the giant turd he spawned? This loud mouthed ignorant twit is sickening and he needs to shut his pie hole and go back to hillbilly land

Are you listening to it? What part do you disagree with?

That the Constitution was designed to protect the people from the government?

That the founders thought it necessary to enumerate certain rights to guarantee that the government cannot deprive the citizens of those rights?

Oh, I know, you disagree with the part about this not being limited just to the current president, but the next ones as well. Or, do you disagree with him saying that a president (any president) should not be judge, jury, and executioner?

Or, are you just blindly spewing blah, blah, blah?

Actually Sarah, I don't believe Rand Paul thinks that just Obama is the problem, I believe and if you read most of the things he says, he lumps all politicians together that think growing Government is good thing.

I would like somebody to point out where he has said something other than his belief on the constitution?

Which part of the following saying you agree with him on this issue? the usually part?

"One can only hope that he speaks until his voice gives out, and then he NEVER gets it back. That way he'll have used it up on something worth while, and we'll be spared the rest of the crazy that he usually spouts."

StoAmerica; first and foremost both of those killed were calling for jihad against US interests, including the govt so yes they should have been killed by drone. The US didn't have right to send forces in to actually capture them and the local govt didn't have wherewithall themselves.

I really don't think the Pres. or CIA director would just arbitrarily launch a drone against a US citizen here in US unless they had something concrete about a threat, and then by all means if the only way to get that person, or group is drone, search them out before they have a chance to carry out their threat.

If only the Kentuckians would see through Rand, and vote him out next time; just like I think there is a good chance McConnell's days are numbered.

I dont consider myself on the left or the right..I am on the left leaning in some things, and right on others..but I am sure that if Rep. Pres. Bush put Armed drones above American cities that the left(and the right) would be up in arms. So why is it ok for a Dem. Pres. Obama to do it? Why aren't those on the left speaking out against something so obviously wrong? I am not trying to say all those on the left support this(just like I am sure some far leaning rights are fine with armed drones above the skies...), but it seems thats this is something that is such a severe intrusion on our rights, our liberty, and just plain wrong that everyone should be against it...If there comes a day(God forbid) when we need the ability to strike at ground targets within our own country with air power, we have manned fighter that can do the job. So on that note Good Job Rand Paul. Thank you for standing up against this insufferable intrusion on our country, and its people.

Ed - "I really don't think"

Did you think the Government was going to bail out the banks, buy a car company, tax you if don't have health care, pass a Patriot act that allowed them to listen to citizens without a warrant?

Yet those of your ilk want that bastard that took down the World Trade Centers to have a trial.

Hell no, he got his trial. Guilty.

I apologize, yes my reading comprehension was very bad on that part (TWICE).

As for the hypocrisy of being anti-government, how all else can you make changes if you are not there? My best friend is a city council member in my city and is standing up for the tax payers by getting the city to spend less money and more wisely he is getting paid, but the arse that he beat in the last election voted every time to spend more money.

It is no different than somebody calling for higher taxes on the rich and for closing so called loopholes, and then not paying higher taxes and using those loopholes?

Sorry above I should have typed

Yet those of your ilk want that mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Shaikh Mohammed that took down the World Trade Centers to have a trial.

So many frogs in a pot of water

whipsplash

Paul = media whore. Another worthless waste of taxpayers time and money by repulsivecons.

Sarah-3043284

And there is NOTHING more hypocritical than someone who spouts off about how "Government is the problem" while COLLECTING A GOVERNMENT SALARY

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/21/rand-paul-returns-more-money-to-treasury/

Of all the people to be calling hypocritical and wasteful, Rand isn't one of them.

If we can send a drone to kill a terrorist of foreign nationality in another country without a trial, why shouldn't we be able to drone an American terrorist in America. I'm NOT exactly saying it should be OK but I can't see why one IS OK and one isn't ... a terrorist is a terrorist ... even worse, one is guilty of treason. If one deserves a trial .. they both deserve a trial if one can be killed without a trial then so should the other. Again, I am NOT judging which is correct but questioning why is there a double standard?

Emagin1mac

The us supreme court votes unconstitutionally all the time

Legally speaking, it is impossible for the U.S. Supreme Court to "vote unconstitutionally." And since the only way to speak of the U.S. Supreme Court "voting" is "legally speaking," well, it's just plain impossible.

in 1905 or so ... social security was a choice not mandatory

Simply not true.

Steve Illinois 49

If we can send a drone to kill a terrorist of foreign nationality in another country without a trial, why shouldn't we be able to drone an American terrorist in America. 'm NOT exactly saying it should be OK but I can't see why one is OK and one isn't ... a terrorist is a terrorist ... even worse, one is guilty of treason. If one deserves a trial .. they both deserve a trial if one can be killed without a trial then so should the other. Why is there a double standard?

Rand Paul was fighting that one as well. There is NO difference.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Rand Paul doing what patriots should: and that is to stand up for our rights granted to us by God, and protected by the Constitution.

I don't know if I should be shocked or not. Most of the liberals on this board aren't even interested in why Rand Paul is filibustering. All they see is his name and they start foaming at the keyboard.

Brennan supports the use of drones against Americans on American soil. From the liberal responses, I can come up with a couple of guesses... one, liberals don't care if the Constitution is violated by this, or two, they didn't read anything, gather an useful information about it, and are just upset because a republican is using a Senate rule to make a point. In either case, liberals are completely uninformed about what this President and his Attorney General represent AGAINST Americans.

wolphi-3018477 and others have hit on the true problem here: precedent. I personally am not worried about Obama turning lose the drones on the Tea Party. It is the possibility that future leaders in this country very well could exploit the legal ambiguity the Obama administration has created regarding drones on U.S. citizens. This should worry everybody.

Finally a politician with substance and character. Regardless of what you feel about the Constitution at least you have to respect a person who stands up for their beliefs.

DingleB, It appears as though liberals are showing their true colors on this board. It's OK for the Obama administration to kill tea party members through the use of drones - at least this is what you are alluding to... but you fear other administrations turning loose drones on you... Are you sick, or just psychopathic?

Repojam @ 1.40 An interesting point. He’s criticizing Brennan for a past belief that Brennan, in his new appointment, wouldn’t be able to act directly on. I can see that. I’m not sure it justifies a filibuster, but that’s just me. But it leaves the point that Congress can – and should – set clear rules for the domestic use of deadly force.

Hollykb @ 1.45 It was the 101^st Airborn. There are exceptions to the rule, and they have changed over time. But again, the debate we ought to be having is not whether government can use deadly force against its citizens. It has always had that power. The question is under what circumstances. And as I’ve pointed out, Brennan won’t be the one pulling that particular trigger as DCIA.

(OT PS: Why is it that if I try to compose my reply in MS Word and C&P it here, it gets so badly mangled?)

edgarw

DingleB, It appears as though liberals are showing their true colors on this board. It's OK for the Obama administration to kill tea party members through the use of drones - at least this is what you are alluding to... but you fear other administrations turning loose drones on you... Are you sick?

I think he was suggesting he's not worried about Obama doing it, at least that's what I read.

DingleB, based on what I have read, is far more libertarian than liberal.

Instead of just attacking the message, why not ask for clarification if you are unsure? Just because attack dog tends to be the method on the Hill doesn't mean that we can't at least act civilized.

Whoa! Now there is a Democrat helping in the filibuster!!! Wha, wha, what?!? Oh crap, now what do the dems have to say when one of their own doesn't believe in a president's ability to kill citizens without trial?

Generally speaking, I have found little to like about Rand Paul. However, I can understand his concern on this issue as a legal concept, and I am at least happy to see the filibuster used in the correct way for once.

On the other hand, his concern is much like the concern over adopting Sharia law, or worrying about the UN sending troops to America. It is rooted in irrational paranoia, and demonstrates a stunning lack of comprehension about our basic system of law, and the legal justifications established for law enforcement, from local to federal, to use lethal force against US citizens. Par for the course, I suppose, for the tea party.

I am much more concerned about the violation of privacy rights by the government, particularly through unaccountable means like warrantless wiretapping, sneak and peek provisions, and indiscriminate dragnet-style collections of electronic communication. These policies were started by GWB, and I have heard no reasons yet to believe that the current administration has abandoned them.

RonB from Pittsburgh

Repojam @ 1.40 An interesting point. He’s criticizing Brennan for a past belief that Brennan, in his new appointment, wouldn’t be able to act directly on. I can see that. I’m not sure it justifies a filibuster, but that’s just me. But it leaves the point that Congress can – and should – set clear rules for the domestic use of deadly force.

(OT PS: Why is it that if I try to compose my reply in MS Word and C&P it here, it gets so badly mangled?)

I'll start with your OT PS. The easy mode has formatting hidden in it. Word does too. May want to try Notepad, or do it in word, copy it to notepad, then copy it into this window to strip the formatting. Other option is to go into XHTML mode and remove formatting tags as needed.

I'll stop with the geek talk now.

In regard to him not having the power, I can agree that while he won't have the power, it's still a thought process that many will feel we should be reviewing. Having to use a correlation, it's like suggesting someone who thinks that it's okay to bypass parts of the fifth and fourteenth amendment. It leads to the question of what other amendments it might be okay to bypass. While a normal citizen wouldn't be under such scrutiny, leadership would. While filibuster may not be the best idea, I think it would be probably the best idea to put this nomination to rest for now, have their investigations and then revisit it.

edgarw

Sorry for the murky message. My point was that I don't believe Obama would resort to that. Of course I would have a problem with it if he actually did.

Atlaswillshrug,

I believe that Rand Paul is one of the morons who is against raising the debt ceiling. Debts already incurred. So this non-thinking punk wants to default on debts we owe???? That's just plain ignorant and irresponsible.

Where was he and his daddy when the debt ceiling was raised several times during the Bush administration? They were silent along with the rest of the nuts who are raising hell about it now. We didn't hear any of them whining during the destruction of the Bush administration.

He needs to get down to business and earn that big salary and great perks he gets paid for by us taxpayers. Perks the rest of us don't get like Cadillac healthcare.

I really don't think the Pres. or CIA director would just arbitrarily launch a drone against a US citizen here in US unless they had something concrete about a threat, and then by all means if the only way to get that person, or group is drone, search them out before they have a chance to carry out their threat.

Where would the line be drawn on what would be considered a threat? Americans who disagree with government policy? Americans who would dare stand up when the government is wrong?

People are naive and foolish to allow the government the power to be judge, jury and executioner without due process of the law. It goes against everything our country represents.

Generally, concerning Rand Paul, I'm with Adam44 - but Repo and Yellowdog pegged the importance of the issue. Judicial review is worth something.

nw - have you ever done any research?

"I’m positively opposed to raising the debt ceiling and I have voted against every debt ceiling increase since I’ve been in Congress."

Ron Paul

Well it seems most of the Dems on this thread are more upset about the filibuster of Brenan (which even Rand Paul acknowledges won't stop his nomination) than with what he's TRYING to say - be nice if some of you would actually LISTEN for a change, but I won't hold my breath.

Now, how's THIS for a scenario? There's a huge gathering of OWS-like people in Seattle, but someone gets a tip that a small group of OWSers are actually anarchists that want to disrupt, say, the G8 conference, and are planning to blow up the building. And the gov't has a lead that they're traveling across a bridge right now, with a bomb in the back, and decide rather than have the police pull them over and do a search, to do a drone strike on the vehicle. Seem reasonable to you? Well here's the problem: 1. What if it's the wrong vehicle? Could be hard to tell after you've blown it all to hell; 2. What about the collateral damage to the bridge, or other vehicles on the bridge? You know what they say about a moving target? And finally, 3. Suppose the gov't was right AND only hit the van, doing no collateral damage to the bridge or other cars - is that STILL the right thing to do? Nidal Hassan, James Holmes, even Jared Loughter are being tried, hell we even put McVeigh on trial! And I live in OKC and remember that - honestly, a drone strike on that carbomb would have just made a bigger crater! Let's think about this, okay?

Billy Bob... please quote some FACT that the Dems did a similar type meeting regarding Bush!!!!!!!!!! I'm not saying some didn't think about it, etc, but the Reps have always been much better at underhanded tricks. This particular meeting of Reps has not been disputed... they actually DID get together and plot not to help O with ANYTHING... now please tell me how that is working for the good of the country and not the good of the party????? Personally I think THEY should be removed from office for breaking THEIR oath.

Sarah,

How do you lessen government if you are not a part of it? Please let us know. Honestly, of all the idiotic babble you spew, that had to be the worst.

Batchitcrazy Rand Paul spewing more batchitcrazy, just a matter of time.

nwnative

Atlaswillshrug,

I believe that Rand Paul is one of the morons who is against raising the debt ceiling. Debts already incurred. So this non-thinking punk wants to default on debts we owe???? That's just plain ignorant and irresponsible.

Where was he and his daddy when the debt ceiling was raised several times during the Bush administration? They were silent along with the rest of the nuts who are raising hell about it now. We didn't hear any of them whining during the destruction of the Bush administration.

Rand was working as an Optometrist during the Bush years. His father always voted against increasing the debt ceiling.

He needs to get down to business and earn that big salary and great perks he gets paid for by us taxpayers. Perks the rest of us don't get like Cadillac healthcare.

He is doing exactly that. You may want to pay attention to those who are actually supporting the Constitution.

For all those claiming Rand Paul is just another political, right-wing hack, I would suggest looking at his actual voting record and at where he is on the issues, not just on the (R) next to his name:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/06/democratic-sen-ron-wyden-joins-rand-pauls-filibuster/

Oh, is the filibuster a good idea now?

Edit: I see they updated this story now too. "Bipartisian suppot"

Sarah-3043284

One can only hope that he speaks until his voice gives out, and then he NEVER gets it back. That way he'll have used it up on something worth while, and we'll be spared the rest of the crazy that he usually spouts

Rarely agree with you, Sarah, but have always respected your staunch views until now. I would have thought this drone business on American soil, killing Americans without due process would be something you would stand behind regardless of the politician or political party advocating against it.

I've read your other two posts trying to explain why you said what you did in this one I copied about Paul, but I don't buy it.

Taking this one effort alone, he deserves to be supported. In today's political climate, it's foolhardy to follow any politician just because he or she is of a particular party, or to dis one for the same reason.

These drones are as bad an idea as the Patriot Act.

I don't think Rand Paul is playing with a full deck !!!

I don't like where Rand Paul stands on many issues, but at least he is being open and stating his case in an open and old fashioned filibuster. This is how a filibuster should be not blocked behind closed doors.

I don't understand why there's a problem with sending drones after terrorists. Those who are American citizens by birth and who move to terrorist countries and align themselves with terrorists give up the privilege of asserting their rights under the United State Constitution. Simple as that. They are no longer American citizens who deserve the due process of law. I find it absolutely absurd to argue that there's no "proof" they are terrorists- -someone living and training with Al Queda or the Taliban (or any other terrorist organization) who threatenes Jihad on American cities is a TERRORIST and presents a clear and present danger to this country. There's no need for the formalities of a trial in such cases.

Hummmmmmmm

"Does the United States Government have the constitutional authority to kill a American non combatant sitting in a restaurant in Paris?" ..

This is about the rule of law ... not what you think ... this the Constitutional commitment to "due process ..." of all Americans ..

It is encouraging to see other now joining Rand Paul on the floor .... The critics of Rand Paul .. Should be watching C Span ... Senator Paul is doing quite well...

Repojam, I definitely understand the logic. If you think he has bad judgment, you don't want him in any high office.

Interestingly, with all the talk about "precedent" here, it appears that the Hagel nomination has now set the precedent that Cabinet appointments can be filibustered. In a re-election "transition," that's not a hugely big deal, but in a genuine R->D or D->R transition, it could be a problem.

I think they should drop a Hellfire missile on Hanoi Jane. She deserves it. Maybe Rand Paul's cousin, Ru Paul, should try to talk some sense into the poor boy along with his GOP showboaters seeking national headlines.

chilled

"I will speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important,"

So says the Idiot Rand Paul.......I wonder what alarm he's talking about? The British are coming? The drones are coming?

Rand Paul need to sit down and stop talking.......

It absolutely makes me gag to have to agree with the likes of Rand Paul but lets consider the implications of the response he received from the Justice Department regarding his Inquiry as to whether or not a US Citizen can legally be assassinated by drone strike on US soil. The response was "possible, I suppose" in a catastrophic circumstance, although the administration has "no intention" of doing so." So much for due process. I personally don't believe President Obama would order a hit on an American Citizen via drone on US soil...but I don't want any President now or in the future to have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner. That's not what this country is about. What would we all have said if Bush's SecDOJ had made that statement?

If Rand Paul is serious and not just making headlines he will introduce legislation prohibiting such strikes. If not, perhaps he should sit down and shut up.

DingleB - Maybe I misread your message... What has me all riled up is the fact that Obama supports the use of drones on Americans and on American soil. His Attorney General also supports it.

The problem lies in the fact that using a drone on an American is completely unconstitutional. All Americans are afforded the right to Habeous Corpus and a fair trial. A drone strike removes those rights. No politician has the right to supersede the Constitution, or we fail as a nation. If someone commits a crime, that's why we have police... to make the arrest. Drones kill... They are a weapon of war, not some toy to be used because a politician wants to kill someone.

lilrkt, you know this is about killing Americans here with drones, right?

RonB from Pittsburgh

Repojam, I definitely understand the logic. If you think he has bad judgment, you don't want him in any high office.

Interestingly, with all the talk about "precedent" here, it appears that the Hagel nomination has now set the precedent that Cabinet appointments can be filibustered. In a re-election "transition," that's not a hugely big deal, but in a genuine R->D or D->R transition, it could be a problem.

To be fair, you could go back further and say Bolton set the precedent for filibustering positions. I'm not a fan of the constant attitude of "that is your pick, how about no" that is going on for non-extreme situations. I understand when there's something that is truly objectionable comes up but it is frustrating to see it for run of the mill appointments. I hope it never falls in with the naming of a post office. :)

What I am surprised with by this filibuster is that it is picking up support, and it's not all from one side of the aisle. Ultimately I believe that the pick will be confirmed, but I would at least like for the drone policy to be reviewed or even discussed more than it was by our leadership.

lilrkt

I don't understand why there's a problem with sending drones after terrorists. Those who are American citizens by birth and who move to terrorist countries and align themselves with terrorists give up the privilege of asserting their rights under the United State Constitution. Simple as that. They are no longer American citizens who deserve the due process of law. I find it absolutely absurd to argue that there's no "proof" they are terrorists- -someone living and training with Al Queda or the Taliban (or any other terrorist organization) who threatenes Jihad on American cities is a TERRORIST and presents a clear and present danger to this country. There's no need for the formalities of a trial in such cases

Good morning! The debate is about killing Americans IN America.

You accidentally sent me the email that you intended to send to Al-Q. You've been reported and the drones are on their way. You have aligned yourself. You have been accused and therefore can now be legally targeted.

Perhaps you people who think drone strikes on US soil against American citizens is okay should consider the collateral damage that often comes along with it and the "oops" factor our government has had to apologize for several times.

americangirl?: Guess you're fine with a prez acting as judge, jury and executioner. I realize that things like a right to a trial by jury, the right to cross-examine your accusers, etc. are foreign to a lot of libs because their favorite countries don't offer such rights, but in this country, all US citizens have those rights, and more. It's one thing to try to arrest someone and killing them when they resist arrest and shoot back at you. But, it's another thing entirely when you decide, why bother with all that, we'll send a drone in to take care of the problem. But, at least the guy is consistent. Can't tell you how many times Obama has declared that he is going to issue executive orders (and has done so) because he can't get Congress to go along with him, not to mention ignoring court orders because he disagrees with them. Again, I suppose a lib has no problem with the prez fulfilling the functions of all 3 branches of government.

job1: The answer is simple, just about everything! Adding $6 trillion to the debt in 4 years is destructive. I suppose you've forgotten that old cap and trade that Congress refused to pass. So, what does he do? He orders the EPA to implement it anyway. Yes, he's backed down some, but it isn't gone yet. All that stimulus money? Heck, it's gone to his cronies and hasn't done anything to help the economy, and in fact has delayed our recovery, as predicted by that independent CBO! Got us involved in a war in Libya without Congressional approval. At least the Bushes obtained Congressional approval to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, the list goes on. The fact is that all of his proposals regarding the economy have been destructive. Obamacare, regardless of it being passed by the Congress and approved by the S.Ct., is still unconstitutional and destructive.

I hope a drone flies up Brennan's a*ss...and when the collateral damage kills innocent Americans...I hope his remains, if there are any, are burned. The American government is a sick puppy.

I believe what was 'explained' to Mr. Paul was that in a potentially 'catastrophic' event or situation, a drone attack may happen. It's a possibility.

You know, as in say an off-course plane on a crash course toward a government building. Might be an American flying the plane. Might not. They can tell it's not Jane Fonda. But the plane does not heed warnings to stop. All the makings of a terrorist activity. Gonna be catastrophic. Who you gonna call?

Send in the drones.

"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."

Americans are killed on a daily basis on U.S. soil by law enforcement. Maybe if there is a domestic terrorist about to push a button and in the sites of an aircraft (I don't care what type), we should charge that person, take him to court, and convict him. Bulls#@t. I want him taken out by whatever means possibly as quickly as possible.

^^^ Partisan Liberal Democrat posters making personal attacks ^^^ Unable to argue the merits of this serious matter.

Thank you, Senator Paul, for standing up for liberty and due process!!!

Rand Paul is a great man, hopefully when you people realize how your left and right are one in the same, you will look at people rather than party...and realized that you fuched up in this last election...and the several before too!

More power to that good man, Rand Paul! I am so glad to see someone standing up for all of us...even though 90% of you are so dumb to realize it! Maybe dumb is too harsh...cognitive dissonance would be more appropriate. First of all we are NOT under any attack, and even if we were, to give one man, and future men the ability to kill at whim is just completely insane! This left / right paradigm has gotten you all so confused or its gotten you to stick to a side (left/right) and not look at the real problem with such a law! While many of you have been bitten by the fear that our government is selling, you are too ignorant to realize that it is them who are fluffing up this scare, or fear of terrorists! There have always been individual nuts running around, like Jeffrey Dohmer, and Ted Bundy, and other like Timothy McVeigh....but to give up your right to life....or allow some idiot politician like Obama or another Bush to have the ability to kill you at his fingertips?!?!?! You are a bunch of cowardly sheep...no back bone...no spine...a bunch of little soft lil pu55ie5!!! A disgrace to be called Americans! Our for father fought....our soldiers fight (although now they are fighting a false war on terror [oil]), nonetheless, they are fighting for our rights to have freedoms, and YOU all are willing to give it up, because of fear! Pathetic! This is about drones in this country...not about a CIA pick!

chilled Comment collapsed by the community

"I will speak as long as it takes until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important,"

So says the Idiot Rand Paul.......I wonder what alarm he's talking about? The British are coming? The drones are coming?

Rand Paul need to sit down and stop talking.......

You are the idiot, just in case you have not been paying attention the drones are already here. They are being use buy the 100,000 over the US right now. Also, in case you are as unaware as you sound Obama has kill four American citizens since he was first elected. This is a direct violation of our constitution and it is idiot like you that push this sh88 under the rug and act like it isn't happening when it has been all over the news. Get out there and see what freedoms Obama will steal from you next. Look at it like this the federal government is trying to ban weapons and now they can kill American citizens without any explanation of why so how long do you think it will be before we are all slaves to the federal government. I would say less than 10 years. Please shut your mouth and let grownups talk because as kids you don't understand what is going on. (Just in case you think that I believe that you are a kid, I don't is was sarcasm). The reason American is going downhill is people like you who will buy anything Obama is selling and you are too happy to swallow it.

Odumbo actually EMAILED AN INTERNAL MEMO with instructions to make the sequester as painful as possible on the American people! All in the interests of a political agenda.

http://inagist.com/all/309030083602022400/?utm_source=inagist&utm_medium=rss

Of course we wouldn't hear about THAT on NBC, would we... Just imagine the reaction had Bush done something that stupid.

But don't blame me... I didn't vote for the community organizing as$ clown.

As a individual that has supported this President and has believed that the President has the right to his own men at his right hand ..and are only to be opposed and turned down for the most serious cause. The president should prevail ..the congress only has the right to advise and consent .. This is the only appointment that I oppose ..

The administrations position on the drone issue .. is .. for me & others .... reprehensible & noxious but more importantly, it's in violation of our Constitutional Bill of Rights, that not only we fought a revolution for, but that we have sent hundreds of thousands American sons to fight & die for .... TO PROTECT ..

No branch of government or politician has the right to arbitrarily decide which American shall live and die .. here or abroad, this administration has chosen to take those powers unto themselves overseas .. in secret ..overseas and now refuses to clarify ..whether they are assuming this same position .. here in our own country.

The administration needs to clarify, FIRMLY, that they recognize that they have no right to kill Americans without due process of law!

The president has pledged to "Defend & Protect the Constitution of the United States ..." .. but is asserting by silence, that he may have the rights to to order drone strikes within the United States ...

To resolve this issue .. all that is necessary is to publicly reassure us all .. that he recognizes the Constitutional guarantees that the bill of rights provides to ALL Americans to the rights of due process.. and that he will not use drones to strike within our borders ..

Senator Rand Paul is exactly on track ...

Thanks Senator Paul for acting like a serious politician by having the balls to speak out and bringing attention to the issue.

Every senator has issues they care about, and some of them are important (I consider the topic of domestic drone strikes important). I don't think that means every collective decision should be held hostage to the point of inaction by unrelated arguments, because there is leverage, for example, with important cabinet positions. That's how we get to the point of getting nothing meaningful done, for years.

Listen, no matter how much Rand Paul insults people, or tries to get him name up in the lights, or grandstands on these issues, he is never, just like his father, going to be the president of the United States, never!!

About the drones; the name Timothy McVay comes to mind. If a drone strike would have stop the attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City, I would have pulled the trigger!!

It's amazing how this GOWRP continues to make an ( to use Boehner's word) ASS out of themselves, continuously showing the are the "Stupid Party!"

Wow you fools would follow your president right into the grave versus supporting the actual Constitution wouldnt you? No one seems to have any inclination as to the erosion of rights until its too late. The drone agenda falls right in line with the Patriot Act, the NDAA and the UN's desire to implement Agenda 21. It is an attempt by a grossly expanding government to broaden their reach of power and Paul just wanted to bring that to light.

Now before you libs loose your barrage of insults including bigot, racist, and all the other inapplicable horsecrap that you resort to rather than logic, Im an independent voter who voted for Obama first term, work for the Dept of Justice and am a veteran. Im sick of the well if you dont have anything to hide why would you worry excuse. EVERYONE under surveillance changes their behavior in some manner and it dehumanizes people bit by bit and thats what drones do, spy on you until they have pretext to fire. People under surveillance have altered behavior its called the Hawthorne effect.

Rights are never returned without a revolution once they are taken but hey if Obama said its all good then why worry right?

There has not, and will never be, any law which allows anybody, from local law enforcement to federal agents, to 'kill on a whim'. This is not to say that abuse of the law by various authorities hasn't happened, but on the streets of America, any killing is subject to review.

If a drone killing were ever to take place (I consider this highly doubtful), and the case was not publicly reviewed to the satisfaction of our legal authorities (or the public, for that matter), then we would need to figure out how to shut that down.

To put this in context, there are laws allowing law enforcement to kill American citizens with whatever tools they have at their disposal, be they shotguns, sniper rifles, billy clubs or dogs. None of those laws give them the right to do so 'on a whim'. There is no reason to suspect that the use of drones for this purpose is any different, or that any have or would propose such a thing. Certainly the Obama Administration has not made that argument.

Hummmmmmmm If they would have had "Drones" and the attitude that prevails today .. Waco and Ruby Ridge would have been Droned" instead of burned, and shot ....

Oh .. I forgot ... Waco & Ruby Ridge was the injustice that incited Oklahoma City ... both overseen by ... The Federal Government

"Farewell ... The Rights Of Man!"

From the filibuster-

‎"Bush started this, Obama is expanding this. The irony is that Obama ran as the anti-Bush candidate."

Realist17:

You will not see that "news" on nbc, for the simple reason that it does not exist. What you tout as "fact" is really just a republican congressperson's interpretation of the relative inflexibility of the sequester's cuts. Given the rather ridiculous things republican congressmen have alleged recently (how many communists did West say were in congress again?), it would be wise to take this silliness with a huge grain of salt.

put a fork in it post 1.31

BRAVO !!!! You really nailed it.

Snakebone, the email STATES:

"We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

That is not an interpretation. It is a direct QUOTE.

This is news in EVERY TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD - It would be news even had Odumbo not gone in front of every television camera he could find in order to create the "hardship of sequestration" issue in the first place.

NBC and mainstream media clowns had no problem printing articles where Obama warned of the hardship. Why not print articles that show that he in fact predetermined the hardships?

You're stupid if you think his fillibuster is about denying the vote as much as it is answering questions regarding the Drone program that so much as dually supports Obama executing anyone in US deemed a terrorist without due process here in the states.

Does it not bother any of you that you might be on the next isle in the Grocery store when one of these drones takes out a suspected terrorist in produce? And you are just collateral damage. The idea that our government even considers this appropriate is horrifying. Are all of you socialists OK with this? Have you gotten that low?

I cannot believe the comments here. Did anyone read that this is a bipartisan filibuster?

@ mary p:

I tried to point out the same thing in my post above yours when I mentioned collateral damage,but some of these folks would just rather bash Paul than face reality.

All you paranoids that think the government will target you because of an accusation, think for a minute. If this was true, about two thirds of the people who post on these threads would have been long ago targeted. We survived 8 years of Bush, now it's your turn to suck it up.

Mary:

What bothers me is that you - or anyone in America - would believe that any official, on any level, of any party, would order a drone strike on an American grocery store, or even consider such a thing ever "appropriate". Are you wingnuts really that mindlessly paranoid? Have you gotten that low?

Simply put...Rand Paul is an idiot.

Well...they are missing a good dinner....

OK - Let's take a look at this from a historical perspective. On September 11, 2001, four commercial airliners were hijacked and two were flown into the WTC. A third crashed into the Pentagon. The fourth was turned back toward Washington, DC; target unclear, but probably the White House or the Capital building. Military jets were scrambled all over the east coast. Now for you righteously indignant posters out there, what do you think would have happened if the fourth plane had not crashed in Pennsylvania? What would you have wanted the military to do? What if they simply tailed the plane and it crashed into the nation's capital? What would you have said to that?

Well, knowing the kinds of people you are, you would have demanded to know why the military let it happen. There was no way of knowing who was in the cockpit at that time; it could have been an American extremist. How about the other innocent Americans killed with the terrorists? Would you have squealed about the killer's constitutional rights to a fair trial? You know damned well you wouldn't have! Now tell me what Eric Holder is saying about using a drone in exactly the same circumstances that suddenly offends you so deeply.

You hypocrites! Your playbook takes a 180 degree turn when the Obama administration is in the picture. And you wonder why fewer and fewer Americans are paying any attention to your hysterical ravings. I try to be civil in political discussions. but you fanatics make it soooo difficult!

Realist17#1.141...who is your source? When you quote a source the source should be provided otherwise your statement is conjecture at best.

Snakebone#1.136...I'd be inclined to support your comment regarding the use of Drones. First, I have not read the Patriot Act but wonder if this was a provison within it just never spoken aloud about. Consider the law does empower when a given situation is determined to be an act of Terrorism. To my knowledge it does not distinguish between foreign vs. American Terrorist. Thus President Obama would be within the law that was passed under his predecessor. If President Obama did in fact at any time breech Constitutional Law the U.S. Surpreme Court would be hearing the case and then some. Does anyone believe for one moment that President Obama a Harvard Law Graduate, President of Harvard Law Review who majored in Constitutional Law would tempt being unlawful? Doubtful as he surely would know the law and the consequences of breaking it. You could argue he would be adept at getting around the law but in this situation I'd doubt it. Consider that no country ever makes it's military tactics or weapons common knowledge which makes this very unusual. Which makes me wonder if this statement was pointedly made to serve a purpose no one is privy to. I never heard about such policies openly until 9/11 before then it was always after a situation. Again, I agree there is merit for concern but my guess is that this has been a provision long before this statement. I would need more information regarding the Patriot Act and especially the anti-terrorist policies enacted before making judgement. You may all be raising hay over something that has been put in place for sometime post 9/11. We may not have known about it until now.

Kudos to you Senator Paul!

It is imperative that the sentiments of our founding fathers reverberate once again within the halls of our country’s deliberative body. Thank you Senator Paul and the colleagues who joined you, for engaging all of us in the debate that will define whether we as a nation remain a truly free people, governed by those men and women whom our forefathers would embrace.

Realist:

Wow, can you read? Your "quote" is not from Obama, or any of the administration, in email form, or any other. It is a quote of this guy's characterization of what he was told verbally:

"...So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be," Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him. (emphasis mine)

And your conclusion is what the tea party freshman congresswoman - another beauty queen who likes to compare herself to Sarah Palin - interprets from his characterization of what his was told.

Jesus, no wonder you guys are so lost. You can't even read right-wing hatchet job reports correctly.

I read the insanity posted here by so many leftists and I am truly saddened for the USA. Rand Paul isn't asserting that under no circumstance, ever, should the government be able to kill an American on American soil, or not, without die process of law. Everyone who knows much about the law understands that there are exigencies which require immediate action. What Rand Paul asked for, and has been unable to get, is an answer to if there are ANY situations in which the administration would not be able to kill an American citizen on our soil without due process. Paul specifically wants to know if, barring an imminent threat (like a McVeigh case), if there is any limit on the president's authority to kill any of us. So far, the answer is that, no, there is no limit. But there is no plan to kill us either.

Among the most scary liberals who posted above is John--bunch of numbers, who says that if another person was defending his constitutional rights it might be a noble exercise, but that since it's Rand Paul the idiot should sit sown, shut up, and just allow the president to shred the Constitution. Imagine that...John realizes a threat exists, and even says it might be noble to defend him, but since Paul is the one he'd prefer to let the president have this unlimited authority despite it being unconstitutional. Many of the other liberals agree, more or less, with John. This nation is done, we just don't know it yet. Large swaths of American voters, like the above liberals, agree with virtually no constitutional rights for individuals at all. And that is exactly why this nation was first founded. We've killed the very thing which made the USA special.

Hi repojam, could you do me a favor? I'm not interested in demagoguery, or snarky replies. Just tell me what constitutional right that Mr. Bush violated that you are thinking about, or any/all of them if there are more than one.

So you leftists types think it is perfectly fine to take guns away from law abiding citizens so that they cannot defend themselves against rapists and murders, but it just fine and dandy for your messiah to order the execution of Americans on American soil without due process. Why does the left hate America so much?

Even your ACLU thinks Paul might have point this time.

Rich-

I agree with everything in your comment.

Hi repojam, could you do me a favor? I'm not interested in demagoguery, or snarky replies. Just tell me what constitutional right that Mr. Bush violated that you are thinking about, or any/all of them if there are more than one.

Bush authorized the initial Patriot Act. That was merely a beginning, but an end with me.

Leftists here, also, are claiming that since Republicans (generally) agree to the idea that the government can target Americans on foreign soil who are fighting against us that this means we should agree to this present claim by the administration that they can kill any American on American soil they want. But the comparison is a lie, a sleight of hand, and it shows just how despicable leftists are, and how little they respect the Constitution, let alone individual liberty.

The policy regarding Americans overseas, unless this president is a liar (which he may in fact be), was that in cases where an imminent threat exists AND no feasible way exists to apprehend the American terrorist, then a killing was authorized. What is there to disagree with? I would accept it, and the administration has so far paid lip service to this idea, if there were still a due process event that preceded the order to kill.

But the policy this administration so far favors is that only the imminent condition need apply, and in this case that no due process at all applies. Which means, oddly, that the president of the USA, a supposed constitutional scholar says he and his sycophantic supporters, thinks that American terrorists overseas have greater protections that any American in America.

If you leftists are unable to see how much more radical is the in-USA policy versus the out-USA policy then I am sorry to say it, but you are intellectual dullards.

Again, I ask you all to turn on C-SPAN and listen.

The left talks much about civil liberties, but you're fighting against your most precious of civil liberties, LIFE. Rand Paul and a few others, too few, are fighting for our civil liberties right now. You choose not to listen, you just want to bash him because of an "R".

He's a member of the republican party, but he's really a libertarian. He chose the "r," like his father, because of the game.

The republicans on this thread, I ask you to watch and listen as well. You're the ones that typically support all military actions.

Hey Atlas,

Thanks. I'm not sure though that the USPA did anything to diminish any citizen's constitutional rights. The vast majority of the act was simply to create in one act the codification of previous USSC decisions, like the 1942 case against German spies. I suppose the one area one could complain about is the ability to wiretap an endless number of phone numbers (tied to the same target) with one warrant. In the days of single land lines it made sense to need a tap for each number, but today when you can buy disposable phones it's a little more difficult to get a tap in place the same way in time to hear the conversation which takes place. But, beyond this, which to me is a minor change, what are the additional hits to constitutional rights one can point to?

BTW, I'm not exactly saying that I agree with all Bush did. I didn't. But I think the claim that he made things worse in this context is a bit misplaced.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sent shockwaves through the nation when Attorney General Eric Holder informed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in writing that the White House would be within its legal authority to execute an American citizen via drone on U.S. soil if that person was determined to pose a threat to national security. On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate panel, Holder was prodded repeatedly about this assertion by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Holder eventually admitted that it would not be constitutional to execute an American citizen without due process.

“In your legal judgment, does the Constitution allow a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil to be killed by a drone?” Cruz asked Holder pointedly.

“For sitting in a café and having a cup of coffee?” Holder replied. Cruz clarified that his hypothetical individual subject to a drone strike did not pose an “imminent and immediate threat of death and bodily harm,” but that person is suspected to be a terrorist.

“I would not think that that would be an appropriate use of any kind of lethal force,” Holder replied.

“With all respect, Gen. Holder, my question wasn’t about appropriateness or prosecutorial discretion. It was a simple legal question,” Cruz clarified.

“This is a hypothetical, but I would not think, that in that situation, the use of a drone or lethal force would not be appropriate,” Holder replied.

“I have to tell you I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical, which is deliberately very simple, you are not able to give a simple, one-word answer: no,” Cruz added. He said he think that his scenario would constitute a “deprivation of life without due process.”

Holder agreed and added that lethal force in Cruz’s case “would not be appropriate.”

“You keep saying appropriate – my question isn’t about propriety,” Cruz goaded. “My question is about whether something is constitutional or not.”

When Cruz was about to abandon his line of questioning after a number of equivocations from Holder, the attorney general clarified that he was saying “no” such actions would not be constitutional.

Watch the clip below via CSPAN-3

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ted-cruz-goads-eric-holder-into-admitting-that-killing-americans-with-drones-on-u-s-soil-is-unconstitutional/

Pretty scary stuff....

" ... those who have sworn to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic ... "

And YOU took this oath when? Or how many times?

Some of us that HAVE taken that oath, some more then once, wish that those of you that haven't taken it, would just STFU! Those of you that whine about loosing rights given by the Constitution, and haven't sworn to defend it, and then stuck your ass out to be shot off. Should also STFU!

Jesus Christ! Take the oath AND defend it or just go the "F" away. But stop the whining!

Geeze!

Snakebone, are you the most dense person on the planet? The quote uses words like "us" and "we" to refer to the administration. The quote was lifted directly out of the email from the Obaba Administration to Charles Brown, who asked how much discretion he had in deciding from where to cut funds.

Mary, you disgust me as a typical lib. I gave you a direct quote. You can't deal with the substance, so you instead attack the source - OF A DIRECT QUOTE. That is why it is impossible to have a dialogue with liberals - they never own up to any facts that are critical of their party, even when it is clear as day. In any event, the source is US Congressman Tim Griffin. How are you next going to try to deflect the substance of the email to avoid recognizing what an evil bastrd Obama is?

http://griffin.house.gov/press-release/griffin-email-shows-obama-administration%E2%80%99s-pain-inflicting-plan

Hey Atlas,

It's funny though, you might agree, that while Republicans tend to support the use of military action regardless of who the president is at the time, it is Democrats that tend to support military action only when a Democrat is president. Neither party is perfect, possibly not even good, but between the two major parties one is easily far worse than the other. Which isn't much solace if liberty is the goal. But it might be a major reason that Rand Paul picked the Republicans instead of the Democrats with which to caucus.

Leftists are only in favor of civil liberties when they are the ones pulling the trigger.

I have been listening to Rand Paul on TV for a good part of the day. There is a lot I disagree with him about (especially economic matters), but I am really cheering him on right now. This may be a very decisive thing. Americans have to consider if they want drones to shoot at them INSIDE the U.S. for vague reasons. This is very important. On Facebook, I see both right and left groups coming together and agreeing with him on this. This is not a partisan matter. It is a Constitutional one.

[quote]Job1

Let's hope he can get others on board and start doing this to stop all the destructive and/or unconstitutional stuff coming out of the WH.

Witchrunner,

Really, Could you enlighten the viewing audience as to what destructive and/or unconstitutional stuff is coming out of the WH?

Now, think this through.[/quote]

It's obvious you have your eyes shut.

Job1: Obama would like to thank you for being gullible.

Whether you agree or not with his belief. Good on Paul and his fellow team of talking fillabusters... It is their rights and proud that they exert their rights as American Senators.

If you've ever watched Red Dawn and said, "I think that's a great model for national defense"...you might be a Randneck.

If you've ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair and said, "Yummy! That's freedom!"...you might be a Randneck.

If you've ever read transcripts of Brown vs. Board of Education and thought, "Topeka makes a lot of valid points"...you might be a Randneck.

If you've ever read Atlas Shrugged and didn't think "Wow, this might be the worst novel ever written. I'm gonna go throw up now"...you might be a Randneck.

Rich-281385

Hi repojam, could you do me a favor? I'm not interested in demagoguery, or snarky replies. Just tell me what constitutional right that Mr. Bush violated that you are thinking about, or any/all of them if there are more than one.

Atlaswillshrug nailed it with the Patriot Act, which allowed wiretapping without probable cause, due process or even a warrant. The other issue I have is that when something like this starts, it usually continues. Obama certainly hasn't done much to have the patriot act overturned in it's respects to warrantless wiretapping.

Due process is one of those things I'm kind of big on. It may only be used in only extreme situations, but I'd prefer that we handle extreme situations on a case by case basis than setting a precedent on how to get around the constitution.

" ... those who have sworn to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic ... "

And YOU took this oath when? Or how many times?

Some of us that HAVE taken that oath, some more then once, wish that those of you that haven't taken it, would just STFU! Those of you that whine about loosing rights given by the Constitution, and haven't sworn to defend it, and then stuck your ass out to be shot off. Should also STFU!

Jesus Christ! Take the oath AND defend it or just go the "F" away. But stop the whining!

Geeze!

1. The idea you need to take some oath to the state in order to have a valid opinion on the actions of the state is nonsense. This isn't Starship Troopers, and you don't need to serve in the military to have valid and coherent opinions on policing policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties.

2. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights...it simply acknowledges pre-existing, some say "God-given", others say "yours by virtue of being human", natural, negative, individual rights. The Constitution cannot grant a right, it can only aggress against pre-existing natural individual rights. No Founder made any other argument (both Federalists and Anti-Federalists). So maybe get to know the document a little better that you swore to uphold when you took your oath (which you seem to think is more important than understanding the oath itself).

3. It's spelled "losing".

4. Punctuation is important.

Starship Trooper rules of politics and thinking the Constitution grants rights in the same comment....you have failed the internet.

So now we have Ran Paul, a true drone, droning on and on about drones.

Fascinating!

...then we would need to figure out how to shut that down.

We can't figure out how to shut it down now, let alone when it's abused.

snakebone: Actually, what I find amazing is that anyone thinks that running up a deficit of $6 trillion in 4 years should be of no concern and that Obama has done anything to help Americans or the economy. Well, his cronies who have received millions of dollars are excluded, after all, they've made out like bandits, which they are.

I have never heard or read of any American citizen being killed in the U.S. by a drone attack,either deliberately nor by accident.This is I.M.O. another waste of our time and money by some employee of ours who wants to bitch about a supposed possible act of our government or even our P.O.T.U.S. If that had happened I could see some concern,but have these Rep./T.P. people nothing of more importance,such as jobs, improving our economy, the fraud waste and abuse from our government,the mismanagement,lies and incompetence from our Representatives, the unfairness of our tax structure ,the buying of some of our Reps. by lobbyists , the excessive time off that many of our so called Reps.steal from us,their employers. I consider that with acts such as these I.M.O.pointless exercise it is not the best use of one of our employees use of his time and our money.

When everyone leaves the building, they should fly a bumblebee sized drone carrying a shotgun shell up Rand's pants leg. Bang. Proof of concept.

This is like all GOP moves, rambling on and on about something that isn't in order to prevent something from happening. You would think that rightwad schmucks would realize by now that when a GOPiggy refers to the constitution, he/she is referring to the forty or fifty words in it that they like. Note in the posts above, every yahoo that babbles about the constitution says absolutely nothing about it. In rightwad Amerikkka, the word "constitution" means "what we want."

It is a truly sad day in America when so many from ALL sides of the aisle are so eager to give up their rights for just smidgen of (false) "security". A very sad day, indeed.

I see the Third Peril of George Washington's Vision coming to fruition, right around the corner. "God" (Divine Providence) help us all...

This is awesome! Go Rand! Keep it up. It should be common sense that you (yes even Obama) can't kill American citizens without due process.

Obviously (to some) there's no way to get a terrorist in, say, Pakistan without going in with the military and risk starting a war A drone makes sense there. But I can't realistically envision a situation inside America where they would have any need to use a drone for anything but surveillance. Inside our country, they can use police, FBI, Secret Service, military....an endless choice. Why would they use a drone unless it's in a situation already out of control? Which of course would be a crime/terrorist act in progress, and I don't believe they'd need any permission to act, or trial and conviction, in that case. I think it's just a red herring, the real purpose here to cause as much trouble for the administration as they can. As for individuals (like the one Dem in the act) it's all about press and appealing to their home base.

Your filibuster only lasted 13 hours, Mr. Paul?

I guess you can kiss that lucrative Depends endorsement deal goodbye, now.

I have never heard or read of any American citizen being killed in the U.S. by a drone attack,either deliberately nor by accident.

Why allow them the opportunity?

"Why allow them the opportunity?"

I seriously cannot think of any situation that would allow them the 'opportunity'. (See post #1.178)

I think everyone knows why Ron Paul had to stop his filibuster, because after 13 hours, he was completely full of $hit!!!

steel toed boot

But I can't realistically envision a situation inside America where they would have any need to use a drone for anything but surveillance.

Ok, so can you realistically envision a situation where someone would refuse to say "no, drones won't be used for anything but surveillance"????? Because that is the issue. If there is no "realistic" situation where they'd need to use one why not just say "no, we won't"?

Inside our country, they can use police, FBI, Secret Service, military....an endless choice. Why would they use a drone unless it's in a situation already out of control?

Why did GWB invade a country based on questionable intelligence about WMD's?? Surely you aren't suggesting that the government is incapable of doing something that makes no sense.

Where were all of these righteous, indignant right wing flakes when George Bush Junior and Hitler-wannabe Chaney perpetrated the greatest farce in the history of the US Government, you know the concocted story about Iraq having WMDs?

Where were all of these pathetic, right wing morons when George junior took us to an unnecessary war on false pretenses? Why aren't all of these brain dead minions asking for the arrest and conviction of a scamming former president and vice president? Why aren't they screaming about the unnecessary death of over 4000 american soldiers on a war that wasn't necessary?

You accepted an idiot for president, who was responsible for the death of over 4000 Americans and caused the worst recession since the great depression, but continually demean Obama for wanting to restore our economy.

You sick, disgusting, mindless right wing freaks should just shut up and crawl back into the crap from which you emerged......

I seriously cannot think of any situation that would allow them the 'opportunity'. (See post #1.178)

Permission is opportunity.

SO SICK of this f u c k i n g DOG and Pony show that AMERICAN politics has become! To think that either party ( I HATE BOTH PARTIES AND @!$%# THE TEA PARTY TOO) would resort to wasting tax payer time!!!!!

Just to prove a point? SO what's next? Is someone going to hold their breath until their face turns blue to stop President Obama from doing something?

Just deplorable! FIRE EVERYONE! TAXPAYERS IT IS TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE! This type of mockery for what our political system has become needs to change. NO ONE gets anything accomplished anymore. It's about one party trying to mock the other one or hating the president so much that they will NEVER agree.

They were quoting tweets, rap lyrics, eating candy??? W. T. F.!!!!

FIRE ALL THESE LAZY -DO NOTHING POLITICIANS!!!! LETS TALK DRONE STRIKES AND START WITH CAPITOL HILL!!!!!

A NEST OF DIPPED IN STUPID GASBAGS IS ALL THEY ARE! SOAKING UP THE TAXPAYER MONEY THAT THEY DON'T DESERVE. They are doing zero for the American public. Wake up America! Time to put a boot in the ass of these FAT POLITICIANS!

If it was any other job and they made a such a point of DOING NOTHING, THEY WOULD BE IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINE THE NEXT DAY! But only in America is the IRONY slapping us in the face! THE TAXPAYERS ARE THE ONES IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINE, WHILE THESE PATHETIC PARASITES GORGE THEMSELVES ON OUR TRUST!!!

F U C K YOU!!!! *MIDDLE FINGER TO ALL THESE CLOWNS IN OFFICE*

That's my rant. TY for reading.

Hmmm...  Any adult male who makes the choice to wear his hair in a rat’s nest format, cannot be taken seriously about anything.  

The voters of KY made a big mistake by electing this embarrassing nit-wit.

I love listening to GOP SWINE that talk about the loss of freedom and drones, etc... it's all an outrage created by Obama and the liberals! WHAT B.S.!! Do you GOP'er's even listen to yourselves??!!

Spoiled brats, that think the world evolves around them! How soon you forget about W.M.D. and the Hussein assassination by the GOP (your Bush league President) and all HIS CRONIES WHO DESTROYED THE WORLD ECONOMY BASED ONLY UPON "THEIR GREED"!!

Obama is the only gentleman President we've had in the last 2 decades!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And GOP, sit's on their hands, does nothing and hopes to bring more tax breaks to THE MILLIONAIRES WHO MADE A KILLING DURING THE ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE!!

I"m sick of listening to lies and B.S.!! You GOP'ers are just that!! Pee'ers!!! Now go find a stall and pee on leg, but don't tell me it's raining! You guys are the sickest and most disgusting people in the world right now!

My only hope is that if they ever do use a drone to kill someone accused of terrorism that they manage to kill a few of the idiots on this board that think it's ok to use such weapons on our soil. You morons deserve it.

There seems to be an epidemic of stupidity. The President has all kinds of armed forces and strategic weapons at his disposal, including nuclear. HE HAS ACCESS TO BOMBS THAT CAN DESTROY WHOLE CITIES! Yet dolts have latched onto this idea that his ability to use strategic drone strikes is going too far. REALLY? Are people even thinking about the powers a President already has to protect the nation from it's enemies, foreign or domestic?

You can legally take out a terrorist with a bullet from a gun or a rocket or bomb from a plane. So how is taking them out with a bullet or rocket or bomb delivered by a drone too dangerous? That idea has to be apocalyptic lunacy. The whole purpose of a drone strike is strategic. It's used where it best fits. If it's the best option to save lives then removing that option or any other legal option is nothing but insanity.

The extremists had no problem with water-boarding or snatching suspects off the street and whisking them away to secret foreign prisons. And a lot of them would designate any Muslim to be a terrorist. But somehow precision strikes with drones are a threat to us all? *sigh* I guess I should know by now that reason and logic aren't their strong points.

So just add this to the long list of irrational extremist freak-isms: the war on Christmas, government death panels, they're going to take our guns away, they're going to take our rights away, we've become socialists, Obama destroyed the economy, was born in Kenya, is a Nazi, is a Fascist, is a Muslim, is a Communist, is a Socialist, is a Tyrant, is the Anti-Christ, will use drone strikes against U.S. citizens, blah, blah, blah, ad nausea ...

I'm really amazed that we are into the 21st Century and people will so readily buy into idiotic nonsense.

Hmmm...  Any adult male who makes the choice to wear his hair in a rat’s nest format, cannot be taken seriously about anything.

The voters of KY made a big mistake by electing this embarrassing nit-wit.

You're right to use collectivist thinking to judge all books by their covers. We should have never taken that Einstein guy and his frizzy hair seriously...about anything (especially hairstyle).

Ad hominem and guilt by association....the two white flags of surrender in debate.

@SprDg

There seems to be an epidemic of stupidity.

And you are the carrier.

You don't seem to understand the difference between using these weapons on foreign soil and on American soil. Nor do you seem to understand the difference between imminent threat and suspicion of terrorism or actively engaging in a terrorist act and sitting at home plotting.

Again I'm hoping people like you are the collateral damage when they start using them.

Realist:

I'll try one more time, just because I find it hard to believe you can't understand the meaning of words.

It is clearly stated, in both the Post story and on Mr. Griffin's website, that the 'internal email' in question is FROM Mr. Brown, not TO him. Your incriminating quote is what Brown says he was told by someone (he didn't say who) at the USDA.

That is not a 'direct quote' of the mystery person at the USDA; it is only a direct quote of Brown's characterization of what he said he was told by the mystery person. Do you understand the difference? Further, saying that the unknown person is part of the Obama administration is itself just a wild assumption, as is your accusation regarding the political motivation for telling Brown that there is little flexibility regarding the sequester cuts.

So you've got unfounded assumptions on political motivations based on far-right partisan interpretations of a characterization of something an unknown person said to a government functionary. Why isn't every news organization in the country running with this one? Must be in the tank for Obama...

witchrunner:

Yeah, maybe we can argue about that on a thread related to the economy. I've gotten sidetracked once already with this stuff on the sequester.

Sen. Bernie Sanders who did the last "real" filibuster for 8 hrs. in 2010, although technically an independent, is considered a Democrat and a liberal who caucuses with the Democratic party. Filibusters are not limited to Republicans although NBC, wanting us to think otherwise, leaves that little tidbit out of the Article.

Drones, assault weapons, pitch forks,....... Use anything and everything against the foreign invaders from Mexico aka illegal aliens!

Snakebone, take off your liberal glasses for a moment, and think what the mainstream media's reaction would have been if this happened under the Bush administration.

You have a mid-level USDA official (Brown) who said that he could find a way to cut his budget by deferring things that didn't need to be done now - and that way none of the meat inspectors would be affected. He therefore inquired as to how much flexibility he had in making the cuts.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the quote was Brown's characterization of what was said to him by the Obama Admin Official. It was made it very clear to him that Obama predicted certain pains, and now everybody have to make those pains come true.

Do you not realize how dangerous this is? If Brown's statement is true (and we have no reason to believe it isn't - why would he lie?)), then the President is throwing the American people under the bus to support his political agenda.

You don't think there's at least enough smoke to investigate and find out if there is fire? Any responsible journalist would. But they did not in this case, because yes - the media is in the tank for this as$ clown of a President.

I honestly can't believe that you are even trying to debate this. Any reasonable human (regardless of party) can see what's going on. I can say that had this been Bush, I would be the first in line to call for an investigation and consequences.

"Paul, who cited objections over the administration's policy regarding potential drone attacks on U.S. citizens.' Just jealous the GOP didn't do this first under Bush. The U.S. police state is getting closer and closer. Chips implanted under the skin at birth, an armed machine gun carrying guard on every street corner, check-points between state lines, drones flying the skies recording everything everyone does, minimum wage don away with, community housing for the masses and regulated work forces servicing the elite - it is the future of the United States!

The killing of American citizens without due process on American soil is unconstitutional, illegal and criminal!!! Period!!

Impeach Obama and try him for treason!!

There are no excuses!! There is no justification possible for this!!

Drone strikes....

theoretically possible...

on Americans...

on American soil...

without due process?

WOW!

Proud, the only president to order deaths of American people in my life time was Nixon. Look up "kent state massacre". And tell me why you didn't call for his impeachment or the Ohio Governors head. you republicans murdered 4 American students , including one who was in the ROTC. duhhhhhhhhhh

So your saying that if an enemy invades our shores we can't use drones? if a bus load of kids is lost on a mountain area in snow, we cant use surveillance drones to find them? If a known terrorist is hiding in the mountains, we can't use drones to kill him? What do you think this is about? Did you think the military wants to blow up an apartment building if a bad guys is hiding in it? THIS IS AMERICA, NOT ISRAEL. Israel blows up ten story buildings with bombs from jets just to kill one guy that might be in there. We don't do that sort of thing. We send in swat teams or special ops. Did you think that Ted Nugget-brain was going to be attacked by drones? I Bet he thinks so. lol

...undermine a duly elected President of the United States.

Mr. Obama is president not dictator. We have two parties in this country. The opposition is supposed to do everything in their power to obstruct the other party, that's how our government works. It isn't treacherous or criminal or underhanded to obstruct the agenda of a president when you disagree with that agenda.

You can legally take out a terrorist with a bullet from a gun or a rocket or bomb from a plane.

Not an American citizen unless that terrorist is in the act. It has nothing to do with the technology involved but the idea that the president is claiming the power to kill you in your sleep, or while your walking down the street minding your own business, without due process. If the guy is about to detonate a bomb or shoot somebody, ie an imminent threat, I doubt there is anybody that would deny we should take him out. But Mr. Paul is concerned about the idea that the president has a secret kill list and has claimed that it could be legal to kill suspected terrorists who are American citizens on American soil even if there is no imminent threat of terrorism.

Realist:

I do, actually, think there is good enough reason to chase this down. I have no doubt, in fact, that there are a few journalists who are doing so. Remember that the 'story' is new - I would be willing to bet that Brown has been contacted to flesh out some important details. Were I a journalist, I would have gotten one of those calls in myself. Were I an editor of a credible publication, however, I most certainly would not be rushing to print allegations of crass political manipulations without some facts - not because of my political leanings, but because of the very real possibility of destroying my publication's reputation.

Key to the issue is who told Brown not to contradict the stated impact, what he believed they were telling him, what they say they meant be that, who Brown was complaining to, and what they decided on the issue. Without even going into whether Brown lied for some reason, this could easily be simply a case in which Brown thought his immediate superiors were suggesting something he considered inappropriate, and took his complaint over their head to resolve the dispute. This happens all the time, and is not particularly dramatic. Could be that he misunderstood what they said, could be that they were overly zealous and trying to get brownie points for helping 'the cause', could be that their superiors snapped them back, could be that the whole issue originated in that department, unrelated to any nefarious 'directives from above', and never left that department.

But it also could be that what you suspect - nay, what you declare is the evident and obvious truth - is, in fact, true. It is not self-evident that it is true, such that anybody who doesn't automatically believe it is a blind liberal lemming, but because of what Brown said in his email, I think there is cause for solid journalistic investigation here, I think it will happen, and I want to hear the results.

@ George PaulJohn

Are you saying the Kent State Massacre wasnt wrong? If yes, then how is this different?

"So your saying that if an enemy invades our shores we can't use drones?"

Were talking about American citizens, already in America, who have been deemed to be the enemy without due process. We're not talking about some foreign Army invading.

"Did you think the military wants to blow up an apartment building if a bad guys is hiding in it?"

No..."the military" as a whole does not...but, it doesn't require the military as a whole to load, operate and conduct an air strike. Loading and preperation could be done by regular military without any knowledge of the end goal. While the flight and execution can be done by any available operator who is willing. At this point, Eric Holder only needs to be trained on how to pilot a drone and viola...dead Americans.

"...we cant use surveillance drones to find them?"

Surveillance is completely different. This is completely legal. The legality surrounding evidence gleaned from observation is strongly contingent on whether the observer was legally allowed to be where he observed said activity. I.E. It can't be fruit from a poisoned tree. It's really no different than a news helicopter gathering information from an elevated flying position.

Caesar Augustus-

"so speaking of Drones, what would be in place to stop say Holder from declaring everyone in here that isnt a King Hussein Supporter a Terrorist worthy of droning?"

Maybe you had a good point, but as soon as you said King Hussein I stopped listening.

I cannot believe there is any support for this unconstitutional BS. This administration used drone strikes abroad and to hell with the "collateral damage"(innocents,knuckleheads),they even killed a so-called terrorists' son,who was sixteen and looking for his father(seperately,meaning after the fact for the dummies out here),this is not a partisan issue,this is a human rights issue. Why are drones needed? Police and other enforcement is incapable of investigating and executing search warrants? let's just send in a drone? There is NO rational argument FOR the use of drones,period. Take the partisan glasses off and be thankful that some in office actually CARE about this VERY IMPORTANT issue,this nominee is undeserving of the office he is being appointed to.

RANT PAUL has decided to make a stand for the insurrectionists in the country who are busily forming into "militias" as if we are facing some enemy from within. Once again Paul labels himself through his speech and actions as a member of the lunatic fringe.

I'll give you a scenario where a drone strike on American soil, on an American citizen may be justified. On the border, a drug gang heavily armed has compromised the local police and have taken a town hostage.

How about a group of American born terrorists with foreign ties has mobilized and are in the process of carrying out an act that would surely cause mass destruction of American lives.

Another, A militia group, Aryan Nation Based, 300 strong, has hold up in a mountainous region and are heavily armed with small cannon, anti aircraft weaponry, etc. and Wanted on warrants of illegal gun running.

What to do? Would a strategic drone strike be preferable rather than committing good men and women to the task of bringing these miscreants to justice and exposing them to death and grievous wounds?

How about a group of American born terrorists with foreign ties has mobilized and are in the process of carrying out an act that would surely cause mass destruction of American lives.

These may be the reasons that the AG was reluctant, or hesitant to rule out the possibility of a drone strike on an American citizen. It is ludicrous to think that a drone would be used in a middle of an American neighborhood to capture a single, or small group of criminal suspects.

There is much to say about this but in reading previous comments it has become clear to me that there is no point in arguing with a liberal over right and wrong for they do not know the difference. May God have mercy on us all!

13 hrs. of Hogwash, I think Rand Paul got his jellybeans all mixed up, Paul is the blueprint to stupidity !!!Rands filibuster was more like pollution, did Paul have any time for a little H2O ???

When you have to justify your actions you have already compromised the truth. Keep justifying what is happening in Washington if it helps you sleep at night. Keep thinking that our elected officials have our best interests at heart. Then wake up and read the freaking newspaper and realize they are all crooked and out for their own interests and pocket books.

The country is 16 Trillion in debt yet we continue to give aid to unfriendly governments as a "sign of good faith" see we are not the bad guy look at how much money and food we send you. Please when are the people of American going to wake up??? I know when an "accidental" drone strike hits a school because there was a bomb threat and a group of teachers were accused of starting a "terrorist group". I am becoming ashamed of this country and all the people who seem to just call each other names "libitards" republicons" its all childish behaviour and you should all grow up and quit acting like a freaking 2 year old who thinks they are always right!!!

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Thank you Rand Paul for looking even stupider than usual.

Yboocs79 #1.211, I agree with you 100%, We as a Nation are Broke and we are still giving out foreign aid to sick crazy Country's, Each year 55B to 75 Billion of American tax payers money, when will this stupidity end ???

My guess. With the way people cant agree on a clear path and quit the name calling and stupidity......never. Most likely we will get taxed more to pay for more crap that none of us agrees to and eventually we will all be in the 35-50% tax bracket and wondering why the hell are we getting taxed so much.

Snakebone, that's fine if you believe that some journalists are tracking this down. Given how many times NBC doctored videos to make the GOP look bad, and given how CBS actually concealed stories negative to Obama during the election, I'm not holding out hope that the mainstream media gives a rip about this story.

If the mainstream media had any transparency and integrity, they would have already published the story that a USDA manager has come out and said that he has to cut where most painful, to justify Obama's predictions. That Brown said it is a story in and of itself. Then the media should further investigate as the story develops. That's how news is typically handled.

What I do know is that had this been the Bush administration, this would already have been all over the headlines. And that's the liberal biased double-standard in the media today that has helpd Obama divide our nation. We can't get all the news (on both sides) from one network anymore. Everybody is in the tank. The mainstream media started it - and then Fox fortunately countered as the only network that gives news from the GOP side.

Hey Haggisbingo #1.212 - "Bonjour", you would think Rand Paul would be getting tired of making his party look Stupid !!!

Here we go again. ONLY the democraps have the right to free speach, an opinion and are patently correct. You people are TOOLS and TROLLS.

It was NOT a waste of time, it is politics.

Why do you only have a short term memory.

These things are IMPORTANT to discuss and debate.

Our freedoms ARE being attacked, from every angle and from every political position. NAFTA, Patriot Act, NDAA, Fast and Furious, 9/11, OK City..... on and on and on and on.

If you honestly believe that our government has OUR best interest in mind then you are terribly mistaken. They are USING you. They are ABUSING you. They will BETRAY you when the time is right. Read history. I mean REAL history, not the crap they teach in today's sheeple factories.

American girl, you posted

American Girl-724855 Comment collapsed by the community

TO: MIke-680333 who wrote:

"Say what you will about Rand... he is the only Congressmen to propose a bill for term limits. That right there speaks volumes about him..."

He what? Both Rand Paul and Mitch McConnel are from Kentucky, which apparently doesn't have "term limits" because McConnell has been in the Senate for a very long time.

So you must be saying that the Kentucky Congressmen support term limits for others, but no term limits for them personally

Are you really that dumb? It said Rand Paul proposed term limits. It didn't say anything about Mitch McConnell but please don't ever let the facts get in the way of your lunacy. And how many of your democrat senators and congressmen have been there their whole political lives. But we don't count them do we? After all the are YOUR party, the blessed, the chosen. But who blessed them? Who chose them? Who cares? Perhaps if Rand paul could get term limits passed we could get rid of their lazy butts.

And to Jobs 1, You must be as dumb as American girl. When the quote was "we are talking about the killing of american citizens without due process". Then in your diminished capacity you siad, Duh, well, tell me who was killed? Noone idiot! we're talking about the possability of killing anyone without due process. But you only post in one - liners so you couldn't figure that out. Just as you can't figure out much of anything else that can't be discussed in a one line post. Everyone want's their 15 minutes of fame but with your attention span I guess you just want your 3 seconds.

And to the rest of you wailing about " Well, what's the big deal? we can take out a terrorist plane with a drone.". You are almost too stupid for words. Yes we could take out a terrorist plane with a drone except there isn't one on every street corner to respond now is there? And modern fighter jets are much faster than a drone so we can use them right? Well, they're not on every street corner either. The Bill of Rights says you are entitled to due process. That's your RIGHT! But you seem to not care much about giving up your rights to the king as long as he cares for you like a mother for a baby, forever! Guess what! He ain't your mother or your king! And you're not a baby! So grow up! Pay attention! Or go crawl in your crib and leave the adults the hell alone. Maybe Obama will come change your diaper eventually.

Tokenflame

RANT PAUL has decided to make a stand for the insurrectionists in the country who are busily forming into "militias" as if we are facing some enemy from within. Once again Paul labels himself through his speech and actions as a member of the lunatic fringe.

Rand Paul did a great thing by standing up FOR the constitution against the enemy within who want very much to subvert it.

Therefore, the insurrectionists and the lunatic fringe are the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION!! These people are the domestic enemies that the oath to defend the Constitution warns of.

If you can't see this, there's no hope for you. To help you understand the danger here, close your eyes and imagine that it's G.W. Bush in power now. Recall how folks like you screamed and moaned about the Patriot Act allowing telephone wiretaps and other new powers (I didn't like it either), then imagine Bush claiming the power to kill American citizens on U.S. soil without a trial.`

Not scared yet?? Remember, "your guy" may be in power now, but someone else will inherit this terrible and unconstitutional power (that you may not agree with) if it isn't stopped.

I can't believe how small minded Americans have become.

13 hrs. of this Clown Rand Paul wasting American tax payers money is beyond a A$$ho!e, this is why our Country has a problem, get these jerks off the hill and out of our house !!!

@seaskip....you complain about a man doing what he is elected and payed for. He stood up for what he believes is an injustice and you ridicule him. A waste of tax dollars is more along the lines of a bailout, green energy that has gone bankrupt despite billions in aid, aid to foreign countries, stimulus package that shows time and again its not working, full pensions for persons serving a mere 2 yrs in congress. Those are a waste of tax dollars not a man doing his job as he sees it to be done.

Actually it is a issue worthy of filibuster. Killing people with out due process is problematic. Now the ones that go to a foreign country to kill Americans are military targets. If they come home, do we risk killing mom. I say no. I remember a book, where guys defense was he kill two people a week for the government. He said he work for Mr. Bush, at the CIA. The CIA refused to respond and the case never went to trial. F. Lee Bailey's book if I remember right. Eisenhower put the CIA in the murder business, Ford put an end to it. Funny thing Ford never believe the single gunman theory. But believed the CIA's destruction of documents was to protect it murder business and not to hide involvement in Kennedy Assassinations. The man who has confessed to shooting Kennedy from the grassy knoll was a CIA Assassin.

You know what seaskip? By and large I've left you alone because your posts are usually stupid and you are pretty much irrelevant. But now rand Paul is wasting the taxpayers money by doing his job huh? You want to get these jerks off the hill and out of your house? Which jerks would that be? the one in charge who spent millions flying around the country proclaiming the sky was falling and going on vacation? Oh wait it didn't cost millions for him to go on vacation did it? Air force one, the secret service, his enhtourage, and food and lodging for all of them were paid for by the president, Right? Grow up! And the democratic congress has never wasted a dime have they? I'm not saying the republicans are blameless but you certainly are saying the democrats are. It takes two to tango pal and the democrats seem to want to dance by themselves. Kind of like making love by yourself. But like the democrats, that's just called jerkin" off.

And Rand Paul was doing exactly what he should have done. He was questioning the qualifications of a presidential appointee. And the responses that were given. That has never happened before has it? Judge Bork comes to mind but that was a different thing entirely Right?

Whats injustice is letting an American turned terrorist that kills Americans to get away with murder, drones are only used on overseas missions, not on U.S. Soil, no boots on the ground saves life's, get it right !!!

I've Read a couple comments about killing an American citizen on American soil as illegal, Well I hate to say this but the Republicans are MORONS how's about that Stand Your Ground BS is that not the same, you can just claim you feared for your life and KILL someone that has no Weapon, you people need to grow a brain!!! Oh right you're going to arrest and convict them first, See how FU_KING STUPID THAT SOUNDS.

dtrx

I cannot believe there is any support for this unconstitutional BS.

You shouldn't be surprised. More and more people in this country are becoming brain dead morons who will agree with anything their puppet masters tell them to. If Barrack Obama were a republican 90% of the people who support the drone policy would instead oppose it and and 90% of those who oppose it now would instead support it.

, I wonder what the real purpose of the filibuster was. Was it to block the appointment of another "professional" civil servant to a higher adminsitration position, or was it because of that candidate's views on using potential mass destruction weapons on U.S. citizens, INSIDE U.S. borders.

As for the people believing this would never be done by "our" governemtn, what do you think the Japanese descent LEGAL citizens of the U.S. would say about the internment camps for them during WWII?

Do any of you know the destructive power of a Hellfire missile, the weapon of choice used on drones? Blast radius? Ability to be stopped when someone says "OOPS! That's not our target." How about the ability of hackers, (and it has been done,) to take over a missile equipped drone and redirect it somewhere else, then fired at some other target. Science fiction? No - science fact, it has happened.

While agreeing drones can be used for strictly observation purposes, there is nothing in any government officials statements affirming, or vowing, swearing, whatever, they will not be used for any other purpose.

Politics, by its very nature, makes people with ANY inclination toward self aggrandizement or power, even more so, and some, by their very nature, will use every tool in their arsenal to advance that power. And if that means using armed drones against people disagreeing with their point of view, it could happen. Politicians are masters of obfuscation, and avoiding stating "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Anyone remember Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the generals in charge of the Japanese military during WWII, and how many people, even their own citizens, were killed, by their own orders?

The jerks I'm talking about are the ones that stood by and let GWB destroy our Nation and if that wasn't enough, now they are blocking everything and stopping our President from cleaning up "W's" mess !!!

Seaskip, There were over 200 New Billionaires this year, While 98% of the People are having a hard time putting food on their tables, so if that is not clear enough what is. But does that even phase the Republicans. NOPE

Seaskip,

"Whats injustice is letting an American turned terrorist that kills Americans to get away with murder, drones are only used on overseas missions, not on U.S. Soil, no boots on the ground saves life's, get it right !!!

I did get it right. Or did you miss The Attornay General and his comment about not ruling out drone attacks on american soil. You, like a few others on here seem to pick and choose which news articles are relevant. Let my give you a few you may have missed.

1 Obama pickes new head of the Office of Management and budget. And it's an executive for that bastion of high wages, wonderful benefits, and american made products --- Walmart. Now she might be a great executive but I wonder hoe she'll feel about Obama's $9.00 minimum wage?

2. Eric Holder refuses to rule out drone attacks on american soil! Pretty self explanitory.

3. And my favorite. Obama proposes cuts to --- wait for it --- SOCIAL SECURITY. But! But! No! He didn't. he said he never would. That story lasted about 1/2 an hour on MSN and then disappeared.

In fact all these stories were reported on MSN. Sometimes you just can't make this stuff up folks. It just kind of falls in your lap.

gotta love facts! Its funny you can tell someone is brain washed by their responses to certain things, ie.."faux news" "repukians" "commies" "socialists" and the list goes on. The only thing I never see on these political debates are the words "fellow American" do we not all understand that we have differing opinions and stances and just because you believe what you do and I what I do does not give you the right to call me a name to make your pitiful life feel better.

Washington is working over time to take away rights as they see fit in order to "save the greater good" its slowly been happening for over 50 years. Wake up people we are nothing but collateral damage and sheep for the powers that be.

Go ahead Liberals and think that allowing drones to patrol our air space is good for our country. Go ahead and think that the CIA is exactly what it says it is, after all if the leaders of the DNC say its so then its gospel.

So the libs are ok with Obama and Holder killing Americans on American soil with out due process? Reminds me of another time in history when this happened, 1930's Germany comes to mind. Way to go libs, way to go.

Yboocs.

The mantra! Never let facts get in the way of a good story!

And I'm not so dumb that I don't think it goes both ways. Libtards, Facist, Socialist. Yeh right. It's just that many on here are so blind they think that ONLY one side can be right. Republicans have done some dumb crap. Richard Nixon comes to mind. But then you have Nancy Pelosi who would have been thrown in jail for insider trading had she not been in congress. It doesn't apply to them.

So y'all go on spouting your hate and when it all goes to hello you can always say "IT"S THEIR FAULT"! Yeah, that'll fix it.

Sam,

Are you angry that there are liberal billionaires or is that ok? F-cking lib hypocrite. Also, do you want to add anything to the discussion about Obama and Holders abuse of power?

"13-hour filibuster ends on joke." The biggest joke of all is that we pay these guys to run our country!

I love the hate and love spewed at Rand Paul for this based on his party affiliation. This is an instance where a politician used the system in a way that is both neither intended to block legislation nor seriously hinder the executive branch's wishes to fill important positions. It simply and effectively brought an issue that needs to be highlighted further into the light. By Paul's admission, he fully expects the confirmation to go through. I suggest that some of you play a game- Pretend Rand Paul is a Democrat doing this to shed light on the inequities and civil liberty implications of the Patriot Act while a Republican is president. Now how would you judge judge his actions on that criteria? I would venture to bet that, if many of you are honest with yourselves, many of these posts would be polar opposite. Regardless of how I feel about the issue I applaud Paul for using a relatively non-invasive and personal means of forcing a civil liberties issue with controversial ramifications to the spotlight while not seriously hindering the motion of the government.

p111

radical left wingers are not fascists, fascism is a radical right wing political agenda

I'm sure the taxpayers AND voters are NOT laughing.

I consider 95% of what is posted here to be white noise.

I’ve been voting and following politics since 1968. I’ve observed that never, in all that time, has there EVER been a time when a President, from either party, was so obstructed, vilified and attacked the way Obama is. When I wonder why, I can only see that the difference is that he is black.

ALL Presidents have good ideas and bad ideas. For instance, Nixon and G. W. Bush had a lot
of bad ideas, but they did have some good ones. The Conservatives’ saint, Reagan, had a lot of good ideas, but also some bad ones. The same can be said for the Liberals’ saint, John Kennedy. But the
obstruction against Obama is so ridiculous that, if he thinks something proposed and supported by the Conservatives is a good idea, suddenly the Conservatives are against it. Some blame him for things that everyone knows happened before he even became President. Some blame him for things others have done or said. Some blame him for not only his own deficit, but the trillions run up under 8 years and 2 wars of Bush As I said, in my 45 years of politics, I have never seen the opposing party turn themselves into such raving hypocrites just to make a President seem wrong. I've NEVER seen the opposing party willing to destroy the economy of THEIR OWN country (time and again) to make him look bad or to make him a one-termer. Obviously the opposing party wants to win, but never at the expense of the country! Politics alone just can’t explain what’s going on, there HAS to be something else! What is the difference? What can make otherwise sane people do and say the insane things we’re seeing? He’s black....some people just can’t handle that. Racism....nothing else I know of can explain the absolutely illogical stupidity we see on this and other vines. I cannot believe that there are so many who cannot find the facts and the truth. There are some that stupid, yes, but I believe most simply WON’T find the truth because it destroys their ‘agenda’. So they find the ‘truth’ they WANT wherever they can find it, and believe if they keep saying it, they’ll get others to believe it. And it does work, just as Barnum could ALWAYS find a sucker.

The thing is, after all this, Obama was re-elected. That leads to another conclusion....the majority are not suckers. The majority is not on this vine. This is just white noise....very, very loud by the very, very few. They can continue their name-calling and hypocrisy and it will have no effect because what they think is only important in their own minds. The REAL damage is being done to our country, by our politicians being hypocrites while trying to justify THEIR racism, or the racism of their perceived constituents.

Like I said, I’ve never seen this in 45 years!

What bothers me is that you - or anyone in America - would believe that any official, on any level, of any party, would order a drone strike on an American grocery store, or even consider such a thing ever "appropriate". Are you wingnuts really that mindlessly paranoid? Have you gotten that low?

If it were Bush alot of people would believe it. As for me, I worry about history repeating itself. Yes, the FBI once got a tip that Public Enemy No. 1 was holed up in a travel lodge. They surrounded the place, and observed some men getting into a car and beginning to drive away. They ordered the vehicle to stop, and when it didn't stop they opened fire. Turns out the men in the vehicle were innocent bystanders, two of whom were killed by the FBI. Meanwhile, John Dillinger slipped out the back and escaped. No of course I don't think that a drone strike on a grocery store to get one man is "appropriate," I just want to hear the Administration say that as well, instead of "well hypothetically it's possible, but this Administration will never do it." Yeah, that's what they said about indefinite detentions, while they signed the bill allowing it. Excuse me for being skeptical.

Realist:

Ah yes, the poor GOP is victimized by the liberal media. You say you know what would have happened were this related to Bush? We don't have to guess, actually, we have many examples. Or have you forgotten that Dan Rather was attacked and subsequently fired for reporting a story that made Bush look bad? You remember that Rather's story was ultimately proven to be true, but that he went public with it before he had independently confirmed it according to the high journalistic standards of his "liberal media" bosses at CBS?

Your own unshakable belief that you know what happened in this sequestration case, and are peddling it as fact on this pages - to be picked up and spread throughout the echo chamber - when there are so many other 'innocent' possibilities left to be considered, point to the reason why the 'liberal media' has such standards. Adding a network like Fox, which holds to no such standards, aids only in cheapening journalism and dividing Americans by reporting "National Enquirer" style hatchet job stories and calling it news.

The myth of the liberal media came about because conservatives could not admit that they lost in the court of public opinion. Conservatives lost big on issues like abortion, separation of church and state, and the censorship of 'immorality', and had to find a scapegoat. Using what has now become a classic conservative position that "if you are not for us, you are against us" - one of the most divisive ideologies known to man - they pointed to those who tried to remain impartial and called them partisan, pointed to those who tried to remain neutral and called them biased.

Now, safely ensconced in your echo chamber, with your own private schools, your own private churches, your own private communities, and now your own private "news", with millions of members sharing your own private reality - in which those who don't agree with you are unAmerican at least - you poke your heads up on these blogs and cry about being victims of liberals and their divisive politics.

How do liberals like me view you? We're sad, mostly, and like the South Koreans, wait patiently for you end your self-imposed exile and join us again out here in the real world.

T Bourlon:

You are excused for being skeptical. Now that the administration has said it definitively, are you satisfied?

Snakebone, I do recall the Rather incident. I can't recall whether it was ultimately proven right or wrong - you say it was proven right I believe you. But you cannot use that one example to say that the media wasn't looking for every avenue to attack the Bush administration, whether the facts were real or not. Rather was simply the straw that broke the camels back along a parade of terribles. That you are arguing the point is beyond laughable. NBC, CBS, and ABC (the former two who have already doctorerd tapes or hid news stories to SAVE Obama), would have no doubt aired this story against Bush in a heartbeat.

But let's say that the mainstream media all of a sudden decided to employ journalistic integrity for the first time in 13 years. Whether the Obama administration meant to tell Brown to make sure his cuts are inline with Obama's doomsday predictions or not, the fact that Brown interpreted it that way is news. The USDA Manager asked if he can cut funding in a way that would not cause a decrease in meat inspectors, and the instructions he feels he received was that the cuts have to be inline with the sequester. So he received instructions to cut meat inspectors even though he didn't feel the need to. That right there is a news story. It is factually accurate, and not left to conjecture. Point.

Whether the Obama administration in fact intended that to be the message is a second news story. Point.

What the media is doing is allowing the Obama administration time to refute the allegations (as if they were going to admit it?). So then they can say that it wasn't a news story because they couldn't prove the intent of the Obama administration. So yet again, they will allow Obama to run the clock out on a story. Can you say Benghazi? Can you say Fast and Furious? This is why the nation is divided - we don't get news anymore from the mainstream media.

Fox is the only place people can go to get the news from the other perspective. You want Fox out of business? Then you should be the first ones in line to want the mainstream media to office both perspectives.

MEMO TO AL QAIDA TERRORISTS from the offices of Senate Republicans Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Marco Rubio of Florida, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Tim Scott of South Carolina, John Thune of South Dakota and John Barrasso of Wyoming

Dear Terrorists,

We of the GOP Senate would like to take this opportunity to let you know that we will stop the workings of the US Government to ensure that any members of your group that hold US citizenship will be exempt from drone attacks by our own military, CIA, and executive branch. We trust you more than we trust our own President to "do the right thing". And we're willing to shut down the business of the US Senate to make sure your people are protected. In fact, we'd like to take this opportunity to encourage any of your members that don't have US citizenship to seek it out, as this will protect you from drone attacks when you are planning terrorist attacks within the United States.

We'd also like to take this opportunity to invite you to contribute to our new political action committee, "REASON TO TREASON" which finances the campaigns of right wing nut job GOP politicians that would rather see the US attacked by terrorists than give Obama an ounce of credit for anything. Please join us, and make sure you recruit US citizens if you wish to be immune from drone attacks.

Sincerely,

Senate Republicans

Mike Lee of Utah

Ted Cruz of Texas

John Cornyn of Texas

Jerry Moran of Kansas

Saxby Chambliss of Georgia

Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania

Marco Rubio of Florida

Jeff Flake of Arizona

Ron Johnson of Wisconsin

Tim Scott of South Carolina

John Thune of South Dakota

John Barrasso of Wyoming

The opposition is supposed to do everything in their power to obstruct the other party, that's how our government works.

Not any more. The only goal of both parties is to keep the people divided and believing our government is kept healthy and honest through checks and balances.

We all witnessed how well those imaginary checks and balances worked through the Iraq war, bank and Wall Street (too big to fail) bailouts and corporations are people decisions.

The only checks and balances our government/politicians are concerned with is their own checkbook balance.

come on Randy, everybody know that was different. "W" could do no wrong.

Just like "BO" can't do anything wrong either? Thank goodness the sequester didn't kick in, otherwise our entire country would be screwed! Oh...wait...idiots.

Randy...Rand and his father Ron have both been against the Patriot Act

W couldnt do anything wrong? ...lol....isn't that the kettle calling the pot black.....I know I will be called racist but its' an old saying - get over it.....when GOP change their mind it's flip-flopping. When Obama changes his mind, it's "evolving"...hypocrites.......Obama has not taken responsibility for anything he's done. He either blames Bush, his collegaues like Hillary and/or he was "unaware"........the ONLY thing he has taken responsibility for is getting Bin Laden and he couldnt have done that had the GOP not used it's interrogation methods and the security to find him.......just wait till Obama gets ready to leave office and see who he pardons opn his way out the door........