March 8, 2013
-
Filibuster Against Drones Being Allowed to Kill Americans on US Soil
On Wednesday Rand Paul staged a filibuster against CIA appointment nominee John Brennan in opposition to his involvement in the US drone warfare program and the fact that neither the President or Attorney General will guarantee that an American citizen could not be killed on US soil via a drone without a trial or due process.
Issues like this reveal the true nature of our government. Here we see bipartisan acceptance of the drone policy with no active reservations against Americans being potential targets of such airborne strikes by executive directive. Only 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat supported this filibuster, meaning the vast majority apparently have no problem with current drone policies.
It’s both humorous and sad that the average citizen will get up in arms over the 2nd amendment, abortion, gay marriage, etc, but are pretty much oblivious to what’s going with American civil liberties being under attack. It makes little sense for anyone to go rabid over the threat of their guns being taken away while basically ignoring the fact that a single executive order can erase them from the Earth no matter how many weapons they’ve stockpiled.
Because the “spinmeisters” of the left and right are pretty much silent on this, it’s easy for them to push this past public perception people. It’s a shame that if folks don’t hear it from “Rush”, talk radio, or the opinions people on Fox, MSNBC, etc, it goes ignored with folks not doing anything to enlighten themselves on the more important and concerning things going on beyond the time wasting “R vs D” fighting.
For reading: Link
The response to Rand Paul? Other Democrats and Republicans as well as MSM like the Wall Street Journal, were not amused
Comments (25)
non-combatant americans is a very interesting term.
What constitutes a combatant american?
@Manbeast - Someone not engaged in active combat – presumably not posing an immediate threat to anyone.
The actions taken by Senator Rand Paul bore fruit in that on Thursday the Attorney General finally released a letter via the press secretary making clear in no uncertain terms that the President does NOT have the authority/power to use drones to kill non combatant Americans on US soil via executive order without due process.
Not so fast. Lets not perpetuate the spin just yet.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133455.html
@saturnnights - It’s clear that they are defining “threat” and “combat” in much looser terms overseas, but at this time I’m not inclined to accept your linked assessment that they are applying the same loose standards within the US. Of course time will tell.
@SoullFire - Well, I’m not saying that, so we agree. Loose ends are what someone commonly drives a heavily armored truckload of hollowpoints through…
It was, as the article pointed out, a clever little answer from Holder, who missed the point the first time he was asked, point blank.
You gotta love those republicans though, and how they defend the newbies, who will soon BE the republicans by default as the neo-cons are replaced.
i’ve been talking about this since the first time they announced they wanted to legalize drones in american airspace. no one cares. this is why america will fall.
It is interesting that they use the “enemy combatant” logic to bypass the constitution. Call me paranoid, but I think basis for executing a “enemy combatant” can also be fabricated, and since we, the American citizens, can’t be every where at once, and the mainstream has long stop playing that role as it should, it will be difficult to examine whether those criminals are killed on just grounds. Even if it’s based on true evidence, violating the principles and the spirit of the constitution is disdainful.
Thank you for sharing this!
I’m so glad you posted this. I’ve been thinking about writing about it but I’ve had very little energy lately with the move.
I wish more Americans were aware of what is really going on in our government and that they were not so apathetic to these things.
@Tooty_fruits - I’ve read a couple of your posts and I like the way you cover things.
I can’t see this as being anything short of an intentional move toward using drones to get rid of undesirable citizenry. imagine if the government had had this capability, the technology and the complicit laws, back at ruby ridge or waco. I don’t believe that during a similar stand off, given the opportunity, that the current administration would hesitate to send in the drones wiping out men, women and children that they found inconvenient, and then they could always just say that the people were armed and dangerous and they could not approach them safely. what saddens me more is that people refuse to acknowledge it or take it seriously, or worse yet, use it as an excuse for arguing against the second amendment saying that we should embrace the robbery of our civil liberties because with such a well armed government it is inevitable anyway.
Cocktail Party RINO Regulars like Senator John McCain (R-AZ) may care about the military, but he seems squishy about the Constitution. McCain derided Sen. Paul’s drone filibuster over an absurd hypothetical, yet he was a vocal advocate against American Torture http://youtu.be/VPv64ipd2cc . So it’s OK for the Commander in Chief to ignore due process in a non-imminent instance in America, but it’s forbidden to waterboard foreign terrorists on foreign soil. RIIIGHT.
Not really. Progressive neo-con.
Stand with Rand!!!
@iones_island - I have faith that all isn’t lost for America yet. There just has to be enough pain felt that the average citizen wakes up to the bigger picture of what’s happened from their current slumber from the drug inducing forces of corporate funded and agenda driven opinion based media. That time will come when people rise above Republican, Democrat, Progressive, Teaparty, Conservative, Liberal, etc, and act on the greater threats at hand.
The biggest problem/threat with international use of drones isn’t with dealing with armed conflict. It’s their role as assassin from the sky in taking out people who are NOT near conflict areas or actively attacking or threatening anyone, but are still earmarked for termination at anytime/anyplace. When Americans who have opposing views to the government are taken out in a peaceful environment because they are allegedly linked to other violent groups, that should get every citizens attention.
@Tooty_fruits - The defining terms of “Enemy combatant” is way too loose for comfort, which is the crux of the problem. We don’t know what the specifics are, or if they are even any or just a “gut feeling” that someone is deemed enough of a threat to be put on the list. The fact that they say they may define “imminent threat” differently than who it reads in the dictionary speaks volumes about the slipperiness of this slope. Bypassing constitutional rights in the name of American security seems to be an oxymoron.
@districtofcalamity - It’s very telling when only 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat supported Senator Rand’s filibuster. It means that despite the sweeping “mandate” elections of the last few years, both elected Dems and Reps are on the same page with this drone policy vs constitutional rights. The general citizenry need to follow that example and start looking for common causes to unify to to make their voices and power truly heard.
@iones_island - Firstly I would like to thank you for reading my posts.
Secondly on the point that the government of a well armed government being capable of robbing us of our constitutional rights is often overlooked by many so long as they are living well, away from ravages of gun fire like the Middle East. If the common folks are anything like my parents, they will only resign to the fact that they are small citizens against a vast institution that they can’t do anything about. I wish people feel more empowered by the powers given to us by the constitution (while the rights remain un-tampered with).
On a more positive note, the ruckus that Sen. Rand Paul caused seemed to have ceased the use of drones for killing temporarily.
There’ still the question of whether those guidelines will by bypass through commercial/ recreational use. Not to mention, I read an article about drones disguised as bumblebees used to spy on citizens are released on the market. Therefore the issue of drones used to kill American citizens in US will most likely reappear sooner than we know it.
@firetyger - I think they eventually will wake up, but it seems things will have to continue to deteriorate until the pain threshold is reached to wake up the masses from the day to day minutiae or typical wedge issues that are used to divide us.
@SoullFire - I agree. The pretense of protecting civilian lives through stripping their rights is truly a oxymoron. It reminds me of what I read on the New York Times two days ago about the law enforcement using profiling and criminal history to stalk people in order to prevent criminal incidents. Sure, the reporters mentioned that incidents of robbery had decreased (I don’t really witness any change), but stalking is a criminal act itself. However the police officers got the legal stamp of approval to commit acts that would be deemed illegal, and the courts overlook that. It is the same with the Stop and Frisk, police officer using physical harassment to provoke targets so they can arrest them for assault. This tactic was approved by Mayor Bloomberg and the police department in NYC. I can’t help feel that the authorities are trying to see how far they can push its people. Same with the gun control issue violating fourth amendment. So long as they get a start on their agenda, they will find ways to finish what they set out to do.
But at least with Rand Paul trying to stall the use of drones to kill on American soil shows that there are still some willing to fight for the common people.
@Tooty_fruits - You bring up an excellent point in that the true reality is this issue “should” have been filibustered/actively protested before it became a threat to US citizens. The middle east has to deal with these targeted assassination with untold amounts of innocent casualties. If our media and so called political representatives stood up for the rights/protections of the foreign innocent, it’s unlikely that American rights would be under such a strong attack now. Unfortunately, things will likely get worse as we continue to automate weaponry to help dissociate Americans from the realities of the devastation of war in foreign lands.
@SoullFire - To be fair, Kirk (R-IL) offered an apple & tea to help and in homage of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. In the last hour, Sen. Scott (R-SC), Senate Minority Leader McConnell, (R-KY), and Sen. Thune (R-SD) supported the filibuster, as did 15 House members. But it shows the divide between the Cocktail Party and the Tea Party, even in the Grand Old Party http://goo.gl/eDLAe
@districtofcalamity - I would look at any “last hour” support with scorn and typical political waffling once they realized that Rand’s filibuster was being received positively by the population. Wouldn’t we all like to sign up for wars when we could join in during the final moments moving to victory as opposed to the fiery/bloody beginnings. The vast silence of both parties and intra-parties on this issue reveals that the “divide” isn’t as wide as they claim on what many would consider to be a monumental issue of constitutional rights.
@SoullFire - But compare the last hour support with the bile coming from the Great Maverick Hope and Gramnesty. Politics is standing for principle, giving (some) on what is dubious to achieve overall objectives and to be charitable to all for later conversion. I disagree that a scorched earth policy for everyone who did not stand for the filibuster. May it encourage other legislators to take a stand. It also shows others true colors. For those, a hearty SoulFire might cleanse in political purgatory
@districtofcalamity - I’m not advocating a scorched earth policy, but I am pointing out the “fakers” from those who actually stand behind their claimed principles, which are very few. I disregard last hour token gestures of support when it would have been easy to offer “real” support by actually joining Paul Rand in the filibuster which would have allowed him to attend the the “call of nature” without the filibuster ending by default. True support would be to not vote for cloture to end the filibuster so Paul wouldn’t need to actively demonstrate in the first place.
Too many politicians do the song and dance of “pretend” support or disapproval when they know their actions won’t affect the outcome. So what happens is you get the Bizarro universe where the majority of so called progressive Democrats vote for war-hawk John Brennan while the majority of Republicans don’t, and I have NO doubt that if a Republican president was now in office and the same person was presented, the polarity of votes would be reversed and Brennan would still be appointed. I would say the only constant would be Rand Paul’s objection, but it would likely be a Democrat leading the filibuster instead of him.
These are all games to mask the continuation and growth of government power versus individual rights.
@SoullFire - Sometimes public policy wonks joke about the “sheeple”. It’s no different with Congress-critters. Few display the backbone to stand alone or when the outcome looks grim.
As we go into the 2014 election cycle, there is an opportunity for reformers to either truly take over the GOP or to splinter off into something more ideologically pure. The latter may seem satisfying but not if it ensures total victory from ideological opponents.
Now is a time for non-establishment conservatives and libertarians to work together to effectuate changes in the body politic and prevent the Leviathan of progressive Federal power.
My concern is trash talking prospective allies (late comers to the filibuster) does little to win friends and influence politics. Now for incorrigible Cocktail Party types, like Gramnesty & McQueeg, there is little hope and they need to be primaried out. But poo-pooing Thune & McConnell when they have gravitated to the Young Turk’s position seems antagonistic to the overarching goal.
@districtofcalamity - This relates to the main point of my post about overall government – the majority of our elected officials should be “poo-pooed” based on their inaction on actually helping the constituents who voted for them.
Republicans need not worry about acting against stated principles because they know conservatives will stomach who ever they bring up because they know their constituents fear/hate the Democrat choice even more. The Democrats play the same games with their base. This resulted in Romney being the Republican standard bearer, which most conservatives did not want, and Obama being reelected despite a continuing craptastic economy where both progressives and conservatives were not happy with the pace of improvement.
The fact is corporate money has effectively bought out most of our politicians so that will of the people is essentially drowned out on the more important issues. They throw us the leftover bones on wedge issues like gun rights, abortion, defined marriage, etc.. to play around with which their ultimate agenda moves forward no matter which party is in the majority. The actual Leviathan is neither progressive nor conservative, it’s corporate power and its financial influence.
This is why we should not tolerate any fake gestures from either party when it’s clear their actual actions when it counts says otherwise. They either truly act on behalf of the American people or they should be voted out. Dems and Reps voters need to lose the fear of the other side and hold their own members to account. It will be a glorious day when both the Democrat and Republican game players find themselves out on the street in favor of Independents or other straight shooters that are not beholden to any corporate overlords. I can live with and would actually enjoy a 2014 election with both Dems and Reps voted out in mass, as that would send a message that would be very hard to ignore going forward, and likely end all the “game playing” as we know it.
In the meantime, I will praise and/or call out the hypocrisy of our elected politicos regardless of which side they claim to represent. I will judge based on their actions rather than their flowery words.