Skip to comments.Rand Paul Filibusters for Over 12 Hours as Millions "Stand with Rand"
Posted on 03/07/2013 1:08:07 PM PST by BarnacleCenturion
#StandwithRand. For a short time Wednesday night, that was the most popular trending hashtag on Twitter. And for good reason.
At 10:39 p.m. (EST), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) ended his epic 12-hour filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan as head of the CIA.
Tag-teaming with more than a dozen of his colleagues, including Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Paul delivered body blow after body blow to the case made recently by President Obama that he has the authority in extraordinary circumstance to order a deadly drone strike to kill Americans on American soil.
During his speech, Paul called that response frightening. Adding, When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. Its an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, No. The presidents response? He hasnt killed anyone yet. Were supposed to be comforted by that.
At 4:45 p.m., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had had enough of these tough questions. He rose to ask Senator Paul when he would be ending his filibuster and allow a vote.
He said hed be happy to sit down if if the president or the attorney general will clarify that they will not kill Americans on American soil.
They, of course, will not answer the question. During a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier in the day, Senator Cruz asked Attorney General Eric Holder if drones would be used to kill a suspect sitting in a cafe in the United States. No, the Attorney General responded.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) seemed disappointed in Holders answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
I wouldn’t say the worm has turned but for sure What Paul and all the others did was to signal the worm can’t get away with all the crap anymore
I am PROUD both my Senators made a STAND WITH RAND
The Honorable Senators from Texas Cornyn and Cruz
Rubio stood with Rand also.
The opening shot in the GOP Civil War. Which has been long overdue.
I like your confidence
please let it be so
it is hard to not be encouraged
byt my favorite part is how it showed up 0dumbo
Maybe the answer is re-looking at what it takes to be an American. The naturalization rules are a joke.
Exactly. Rand leads, Rubio follows. Seems to be the common theme lately.
Yes! ... and then he voted for John Brennan's confirmation.
A lot of conservatives are idiots.
They would rather spare Islamic terrorists than allow them to killed before they can harm this country.
Rand Paul says they should be spared if they happen to be US citizens or they live here. I say no.
Look, I’ll try to be gentle.
WHEN DID ISLAMIC TERRORISTS EVEN ENTER THE CONVERSATION!!!!!!
Anybody “they” deem a terrorist. Nothing about Islamic Terrorists. And rather Islamic or not, citizens, on our own soil.
So, since you are apparently OK with drones killing US citizens here, then I pretty much think it’s a no-brainer that u are OK with drones flying all over the country spying on US citizens also?
This isn’t about Islamic terrorists; it’s about being able to disagree with our government without being snuffed.
“Rand Paul says they should be spared if they happen to be US citizens or they live here. I say no.”
Not ‘spared’, but if IN the US, given due process - then executed.
One mistake Rand made was giving a ‘touche’ to Dick Durbin, imo. Durbin tried to make the point that OBL was no imminent threat when he was killed - in an attempt to oppose Paul’s (and others’) views that the concept “imminent” had been redefined by Holder to justify using drones when there wasn’t an immediate threat or where capture wasn’t feasible.
But that isn’t that good of a point to offer a ‘touche’. IF we had drone capabilities in WWII, we would have used them against Hitler whether he was at a cafe, eating, sleeping, wherever - and who actively planned attacks even though he posed no ‘imminent’ threat himself. OBL was a known enemy, and had committed known enemy actions - not some figment of Obama or Holder’s imagined possible threat that they would try to justify using the White House ‘white paper’.
I would #standwithRand, but I’m worried I’ll #fallwithPaul.
I agree with goldstategop and Ambassador John Bolden. The Constitution says that the President is the CinC of the Armed Forces of the US. IOW, it is his responsibility to protect the USA.
If, on any president’s watch, a situation arises in which a US citizen poses an imminent threat to the citizens of the US, then at the president’s discretion that threat can be taken out or captured. It is all situation dependent.
If we read the US Constitution, we find it listing no exceptions under the CinC authority of the President. The preamble clearly spells out that one purpose of the US Constitution is to provide for the common defense. Immediate defense needs in crisis situations are not provided for in declarations of war, in reprisals, or in covert operations.
Therefore, any restrictions on the authority of the President to counteract imminent danger must have been duly passed as legislation by both the House and Senate and signed by the President.
Time to end the rule of the Vichy Republicans—the day has come for a new generation of Republican—a Tea Party Republican Movement to pull the sorry GOP back on the track built by Ronaldus Reganus so long ago. I hear the fife and drums now. The Rattlesnake flag will fly again, and swing the nation away from the rule of the Progressive/Liberals and their “worker’s utopia”. next target—the weak liveried MSM—we must call them out! With right on our side—our victory is assured. Time will tell. In this dark hour we need you Sarah Palin! Speak to us! These shall be exciting times!!!!
The problem is in a dishonest definition of imminent danger.
All seem to agree that combatants can be taken out legitimately, but Obama seems to be less than concerned with that issue, and more inclined to use the hardware against his ideological foes.
I absolutely agree with that ES. If we have a president who is a liar and a radical ideologue, then we have a loose cannon with enormous power.
The danger in writing laws under the assumption that one has a derelict abuser as president is that it prevents honorable men from fulfilling a real duty to the nation when there truly is a time of danger for the nation.
So, a dishonorable president has far reaching consequences far beyond his own term.
Couldn’t agree more!
>> “ then we have a loose cannon with enormous power.” <<
A situation to which we have become accustomed in the past two decades or so. :o)