Rand Paul Filibusters John Brennan, old school style

[garbon]

I'm pleasantly surprised at you people.  I expected this thread to be full of LOOOL PAUL IS A MORAN comments, based on the fact that he's a) from Kentucky, and b) is related to Ron Paul, facts which must automatically make him stupid and wrong.

I was thinking that and didn't think it worth posting.

Also, one of the excited posters in this thread just stated that he likes it when politicians act more Hollywood and less political.

[Sheilbh]

Lord Ted Cruz is sucking the joy out of it by reading tweets

[Valmy]

I like making people who want to filibuster actually fillibuster. I think this particular filibuster is stupid.

Well it's rather clear to me what the main objective is, to sure up support amongst the tinfoil brigade who think the American government has declared war on it's people and is preparing to ship them off to FEMA camps. 

Well count me among the tin foil brigade.  I want to see rules of engagement on the these drones in all circumstances.  That will never happen so I might as well hope we can limit their use inside our borders.

[Valmy]

Yeah.  10 years of drone strikes on Muslims, that's fine.  Wait, does that mean it can be used against white people?  Unconstitutional!

Heh.  I have been against the drone strikes against Muslims and you told me that made me morally...um...what was it?  Weak or something because that made me opposed to both parties.  Now that somebody is finally arguing to only go as far as limit their use domestically now I am a racist.  All those who do not support unlimited use of drones are morally bankrupt and racist I guess.

[Neil]

Well count me among the tin foil brigade.  I want to see rules of engagement on the these drones in all circumstances.  That will never happen so I might as well hope we can limit their use inside our borders.

Why not just use the existing rules that the military has?

[Valmy]

Why not just use the existing rules that the military has?

Indeed.  And it was not like the rubber stamping was all that onerous...but Bush and Obama have been against even that.

[Sheilbh]

"'#standwithrand is trending worldwide' that's pretty darn cool". Jesus wept

Edit: 'I'm reminded of Henry V, as Shakespeare observed...'

[Scipio]

I'm horribly drunk, but can Ted Cruz actually be a legit human being?  Cause he seems like it.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm horribly drunk, but can Ted Cruz actually be a legit human being?  Cause he seems like it.

He's channeling McCarthy.  We haven't had one for a while.

[derspiess]

Well count me among the tin foil brigade.  I want to see rules of engagement on the these drones in all circumstances.  That will never happen so I might as well hope we can limit their use inside our borders.

Why not just use the existing rules that the military has?

For inside our borders?  Anyway, the question being asked is whether the administration thinks it's constitutional to use a drone to kill a non-combatant US citizen within US borders.

I'm probably naive here, but how much skin is it off the administration's back if it just answers "no"? 

Anyway, Rubio is awkwardly quoting The Godfather and Jay-Z now.

[Jacob]

So say a bunch of Muslim terrorists have high-jacked a plane full of Americans, and they're intending to fly it into the Pentagon.

Would it be appropriate to shoot it down? If yes, would it be acceptable to use drones to do so, if for whatever reasons that would be the safest or most expedient way to do so? And if drones are okay for that sort of action, how should the policy be worded to make that clear?

[Berkut]

The real question is not "Is it ok for the government to use a drone strike against a US citizen in the US"

it is

"What does the federal government possibly have to gain by answering the question in the first place?"

They aren't answering because they want to use drones to blast US citizens, they are not answering because any answer they give will be parsed and analyzed to the nth degree, and will only serve to restrict federal ability to respond.

The entire thing is stupid. Does the federal government have the power to kill US citizens on US soil, by drone or other means?

Of course they do...under very specific circumstances. Drones don't change anything, and neither does "terrorism".

[Jacob]

That's pretty much my take too Berkut.

[derspiess]

The real question is not "Is it ok for the government to use a drone strike against a US citizen in the US"

it is

"What does the federal government possibly have to gain by answering the question in the first place?"

They aren't answering because they want to use drones to blast US citizens, they are not answering because any answer they give will be parsed and analyzed to the nth degree, and will only serve to restrict federal ability to respond.

The entire thing is stupid. Does the federal government have the power to kill US citizens on US soil, by drone or other means?

Of course they do...under very specific circumstances. Drones don't change anything, and neither does "terrorism".

I think the question being asked is more specific than that.  And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways.  I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.

[Jacob]

I think the question being asked is more specific than that.  And a simple answer of "yes" or "no" can't really be parsed too many ways.  I think the administration is just showing its usual lack of spine when presented with a question that is difficult to answer.

What's the correct answer in your opinion?