I’m trying to not get all worked up about the current filibuster taking place because when it comes to national security issues, I just feel hopeless. I’m not going to waste my time debating whether Obama is worse than Bush (and I don’t think he is despite some pretty deplorable decisions), because really, it just doesn’t matter. No matter what I say or do, the national security state will live on. It’s really he one area of policy where I just think it really doesn’t matter what the public thinks, and in this case, the American public is so trained to defer to authority that I’d bet my teeth (and as a West Virginian, you know how rare those are around here) that the overwhelming majority of people have no problem with our drone or other policies. Killing some dark skinned people on the other side of the world just isn’t going to spill a lot of beer at the American Legion. Until we start taking out white people in Texas or Arizona, no one is going to give a shit.
Now, making us take our shoes off at the airport or using body scanners or not allowed more than three ounces of fluids on a plane- that shit pisses us off. But due process and quaint ideas like a government not being allowed to kill its citizenry, well, you know, we can’t let the terrorists win and if you haven’t done anything wrong you don’t have anything to worry about, amirite?
Maybe Paul’s filibuster will get some of the teahadists on the right to start caring about these issues and the Fonzi of Freedom and the other douchebags at Reason will join in with civil libertarians on the left, and these issues will get the attention they deserve. I’m not hopeful, and I expect this to turn into just another idiotic right v. left DC debacle. Besides, there are other really important issues to discuss. Do you all know how much a White House cook makes? Jesus. Just fire two of them and we could balance the budget.
One of the White House cooks is pretty damn hot. Just sayin’.
I have no idea what Senator Aqua Buddha thinks he’ll accomplish with this. But we’re stuck with him for four more years at least. Can’t we get Ashley to run against him?
They don’t care about issues. They care about defeating Democrats.
Would you like that pony regular, or with extra hooves?
Did General Grant know that the US Government couldn’t kill U.S. citizens on American soil? Just sayin’
I disagree with that. I think public opinion would matter quite a bit. The problem is that, by and large, the public has demonstrated that they basically have no interest or, in some cases, that their fear of terrorism trumps whatever sense of justice they might otherwise prefer. So in a way, its the public’s indifference and alternatively its fear that has probably mattered the most on this topic.
People talk about the PLA in China, the ISI in Pakistan and the IRGC in Iran as being a state within a state. The American security state is essentially at that point. And I don’t agree that public opinion is irrelevant. Rather the public either doesn’t care or is completely deferential to the right wing and MIC. The sort of mobilization we once had for the New Deal and civil rights might be able to break the pattern, but is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
FSM knows that I loathe Rand Paul but I find this filibuster heartening. First, because it’s the first time I’ve actually seen someone talk about Awlaki’s son’s death on the floor of Congress. These are issues that need to be talked about.
Second, it’s a real filibuster.
I’m disappointed that Paul has progressively narrowed things to being about killing US citizens on US soil, but it’s a start. Maybe at some point we’ll be ready to really talk about whether the War on Terror is really a war or a policing action fueled by the fact that it’s easier to assassinate than arrest and try someone.
And at least Ted Cruz hasn’t mentioned the Alamo for several hours now. Yes, I’ve been watching/listening the whole time.
In police actions, government kills citizens all the time (see Dornan, Chris; he could have given a shit if it was a drone or a fire).
@Brent: I think where public opinion could really make a difference is by driving repeal of the AUMF. Then the administration has to make it’s Article II argument. I don’t know how that’ll turn out, but at least there would be real judicial review.
Don’t forget that we would never elect a black man for president.
Never say never.
I am glad the Junior Senator from Kentucky is doing this. I still think he is a rash on a hustler ass, but this one action is quite necessary. Unfortunately, it also may serve to up his street cred (until his innate stupidity fucks it up again).
The administration should have been more transparent. It’s never a good thing when you give your opponents the chance to look like they are doing god’s work.
The Ohio national guard indiscriminately fired into a crowd of students, killing 4 bystanders walking to class and severely wounding 9 other teens and nobody even got a slap on the wrist.
So no. Sadly, if killing innocent freckled faced white teens walking to their algebra class without due process doesn’t get people to give a shit, then killing a bomber wont.
Rand Paul doesn’t care about civil liberties. He cares about drones. Because drones are magical flying death machines that ignore all laws and have no policies that could control them.
The United States has always had the ability to kill its citizens without due process. Post-9/11, there were a ton of stories about scrambling fighter jets due to unidentified planes flying too close to important locations. But drones are magic and jets are not.
@The Dangerman: I think things like setting on fire the cabin Dorner was in get a lot less outrage now than they might have 10 years ago. We’ve embraced fear-driven aggression, paramilitarization of the police force and extrajudicial “justice”. Setting buildings on fire or driving tanks into where they live or shooting them just because you can has become increasingly acceptable.
Just Some Fuckhead
Just go get drunk with your new best friends and then lord it over the rest of us.
Gin & Tonic
You must remember the 1970’s far differently than I do.
I agree with everyone above. Police and Sheriff’s department personnel kill people all the time without due process. It happens every fucking day in this country and I don’t see Rand Paul complaining about that. Exactly how many people has the administration killed with a drone within the US? Give me a number. Then tell me how many people police have killed in the past year.
I have a list of some white Texans I can helpfully provide for targets in drone attacks.
Those citizens had succeeded and did not consider themselves to be citizens of the United States and they declared that their states were not U.S. soil, so the situation was different.
Gin & Tonic
Hey Cole, Elon James White broke your blog.
Gin & Tonic
@catperson: I think there is a rather straightforward distinction to be made. If the government uses deadly force in a police context, it cannot do so without due process of law, and, even then, not if it’s “unusal” (Amend. XIII.)
But in a military context, the government clearly has broad latitude to use deadly, even apocalyptic, force. And it has done so on American soil in the bloodiest American war, the Civil War.
Until someone can explain to me how having two people walking around with codes to blow up the world is somehow a non issue, but a drone flying around shooting terrorists is like, the civil liberties outrage of the century, I’m going to go ahead and say BFD on this whole damn thing.
The national security state *began* with nuclear weapons. (See, e.g., Garry Wills Bomb Power) . And it won’t be going away until there aren’t any more nukes, which probably is never.
Sorry, we’re just going to have to get our shit together and not elect bad presidents or congresspeople who won’t ask tough questions. It’s on us.
@Percysowner: Yes, but the Union government did not give any validity to that position, hence the war. So, if there are U.S. citizens in a state of insurrection, say, working for al qaeda or a foreign government, then the situation is not different.
I don’t believe that the President has been in charge of national security since 1963.
@Jon: Yeah, the whole point of the Civil War was that the Union refused to recognize the secessions.
How convenient to say that now that a democrat is in office. Just keep looking the other way.
Dorner got the same level of concern as the SLA got in Compton (with similar endings). At some point, when the police say “Come out with your hands up” and the response is to shoot at them, well, it’s game on and the shooter will lose.
@Jon: Your apples and your oranges.
There were so many restraints/constraints on superpower leaders against nuclear weapons use.
The MSM didn’t give Bernie Sanders’ filibuster nearly this much attention, despite him actually believing what he was saying.
I notice there are no links to this:
” But due process and quaint ideas like a government not being allowed to kill its citizenry”
Is this what you mean?
Well, if the GOP is going to do an old-school filibuster, that’s cool with me. Extending debate is fine – stopping it cold isn’t.
Let me get this straight: do people actually believe Paul is doing this out of principle? That he would be doing this if fucking Romtron were in the WH?
No one has yet explained why they’re so uncomfortable with a drone (a slow speed prop plane), yet fine with supersonic jet fighters, Apache gunships, and cruise missiles.
@The Dangerman: Tinker Bell should be here to expound on this soon.
Yeah, Cole has been ignoring any issues connect with the national security state since Obama was elected. Right. I don’t agree with Cole on a number of these issues, but he has offered a lot of criticism on this topic. Try to get your facts straight.
I was hoping he’d be more definitive in his response.
Far as I’m concerned, they could have taken out the entire extended Awlaki family in the strike, and I wouldn’t give a fuck. For purposes of proportion, I also didn’t give a fuck about Weaver’s wife or the Waco wackos.
You don’t have a constimatooshinal right to an armed standoff, or to conduct terrorist acts from a foreign safe haven.
@Just Some Fuckhead:
There was some interest last night in going to see the beloved 80’s cover band the Spazzmatics tonight. The show starts around 9:30 pm but doors probably open around 8 pm. I think there is a $10 cover. I’m not sure if everyone is still up for it. But here are the details:
If it looks like people are going I will head over after work. If not, I will probably go home, make brownies, and watch Shameless. My SXSW vacation starts tonight!
White Trash Liberal
Rand is playing for his daddy’s crowd and attempting to peel support from Obama’s left flank.
He is blocking a nominee, not proposing legislation or amending legislation to remedy the situation. I give him no credit for grandstanding and demagoguing.
Of course he’s doing it on principle. The problem is that the principle he’s doing on is “Look at me! Don’t look at Obama! Look at MEEEEEE!!”
@Baud: To a fucker that would continue to push hypothetical questions until the cows come home?
To be fair, wingnuts read the names of their fellow white Christian conservative wingnuts as the targets hypothesized in Holder’s letter, kinda like in one of those “Bible Code” best sellers.
“Rand Paul doesn’t care about civil liberties. He cares about drones.”
When was the last time senators bothered themselves to man the podium, speaking ad nauseum, for the sake of a filibuster? The reason that they are doing it now is that this topic of dronezzzz reverberates with right wing nut-job, paranoiac fantasies of the government confiscating their guns and starting a civil war.
No one was suggesting that drones are about to become a staple of homeland security. Holder merely acknowledged that it was theoretically possible that even drones could be used on domestic targets in extraordinary circumstances. Maybe we just need to be given a better sense of what those circumstances might be. I know I would sleep easier knowing that Presidents are never given carte blanche to use such force willy nilly. After all, we may some day have another republican prez…
@Jon: Doesn’t XIII abolish slavery? Not seeing how it’s relevant.
The distinction between policing and military action is exactly my point. Since 9/11 we’ve operated in a very murky area that’s between the two; it’s why we’re still stuck with so many people in Gitmo.
But I agree with the basic point that we need to stop electing people who can’t question authority. (And questioning it just for partisan gain doesn’t count, John McCain.)
I was being snarky. Sorry.
@eemom: The hell you say!
There’s a politician doing the right thing for the wrong reason? Maybe unprincipled?
Oh! What has happened to this perfect world?
On one hand, I kind of hate that Ron Wyden is doing something with Ted McCarthy Cruz and Rand Aqua-Buddha Paul, but on the other hand I’m also glad there’s a Democrat making even a token objection to the security state.
I’ve noticed a number of Lost Cause fetishists go on about that, nearly tearfully. Fact is, Grant didn’t kill enough of them, and he failed to hang Traitor Lee.
Too little too late.
Seriously, though, in light of this 10 year anniversary, I’d just like to reiterate that I, private citizen with opinions, was not only right about invading Iraq, but right about invading Afghanistan. It didn’t take me 11 years after the fact to get how wrong this shit is and how it would eventually lead us to doing stupid shit like torture and killing people we probably shouldn’t be killing.
Where’s my goddamn prize for being right? Where’s my weekly column in the Guardian? Why aren’t fucktarded Congresspeople reading my shit out loud?
@Todd: Congratulations on being a bloodthirsty asshole.
@Paula: I think your award is more commas.
@David Koch: what people don’t like is the informal and unsystematic aspect of how drone use gets approved. Which is fine. I wish people wouldn’t blur the issue with “flying death robots” and all that shit, because presumably it would be just as offensive on principle to lackadaisically approve throwing a jagged rock at a suspected terrorist. The solution is to repeal AUMF and have Congress exert tighter oversight over presidential war powers, then slug it out in the courts.
Every hear of The Whiskey Rebellion? That was 1791.
@eemom: I don’t know. It’s increasingly played as pandering to teabagger paranoid fantasies. But I’m still glad he’s doing it.
@David Koch: Depends on the aircraft paint scheme: Black Helicopters from UN Bad!
How dare you be an authoritarian and point this out. You are supposed to call a healing coven, beat drums in a circle, and sing through verses of Kumbaya long enough for the would be villain to conduct his own punishment and societal rehabilitation.
@White Trash Liberal: “He is blocking a nominee, not proposing legislation or amending legislation to remedy the situation. I give him no credit for grandstanding and demagoguing.”
Yup, you nailed it! He is just using an opportunity to inflame the passions and fears of gun nuts and the like by stoking their fantasies with visions of drones—–the new black helicopters.
@Gin & Tonic:
As the mentioned poster exhibits the insight and judgment of a prepubescent teen, I doubt he was around in the sixties.
@MikeJ: That’s prior to the establishment of a separate police force/FBI and prior to Posse Comitatus. If your point is that constitutional and ethical issues aren’t simple, then I agree.
White Trash Liberal
I’d like to see senator Paul craft a bill that outlines what he views as the proper scope of executive authority for the national security apparatus. I doubt that will happen. Better, as a member of the branch responsible for containing executive power, to just criticize. To actually, you know, legislate is asking too much.
There will be voices among the firebaggers that will praise him for this bit of theatre.
Because those kill more brown noncombatants as collateral damage, sending messages and creating prestige, duh.
@White Trash Liberal:
I see you’ve seen my Facebook feed.
@White Trash Liberal:
Why would a legislator legislate?
How many Native American US citizens have been killed by the US government over the course of history? Must be in the thousands, if not tens of thousands.
White Trash Liberal
The Republican game plan is simple: obstruct, offer no alternative, and criticize everything that comes from Obama in particular and Democrats in general.
This is just obstruction designed to elicit sympathy. If he was legitimately interested in this issue, he had the power to propose and advocate solutions. Instead, he is using the GOP play book.
Boo-fuckity-hoo. Awlaki got his own dumb ass killed, and undoubtedly, Junior Awlaki was balls deep in daddy’s bullshit to be as close when hammer time rolled around.
They’re dead and the world is a better place. Suck it.
@White Trash Liberal: to be more constructive than my last bit, in all honesty, yes, it would be a good idea for someone to introduce legislation that puts a crimp in presidential powers, and/or to rescind AUMF. The president and his agencies, though, are not going to let that happen without a fight: presidents believe that presidents have powers, end of story. No president believes in reducing the powers of the presidency, and especially not when the legislative branch is filled with knuckleheads as it will be for the foreseeable future.
@White Trash Liberal: @FlipYrWhig:
This. The filibuster itself doesn’t bother me. It’s that we’re seeing again a double standard that says a Republican only has to have one positive trait to be admired, but a Democrat has to be perfect on every issue to be worthy of our support.
You should tell them to show solidarity with Rand Paul by holding their breaths until he reintroduces legislation to close Gitmo.
‘Cause he so will, you just watch.
Cripes, a Republican President or AG would have just said, “Absolutely not, no red-blooded Amurrican would create such a situation” and six months later they would blow up some hippies in a bunker and no one would bat an eyelash.
Holder was mature and honest. When will they learn what a trap that is?!?!?
@efgoldman: including civil libertarians like Feingold.
How about Little Rock in 1957 then?
@WereBear: No shit, this is all so fucking stupid.
Including liberal heroes Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold.
There are 80 detainees ready to released right now, but winguts have made it impossible.
@efgoldman: Obama was trying to move it, not close it. But yeah, Congress blocked his attempt to subject the inmates to due process. But he’s also the one who then went through with kangaroo courts.
You’re dead ass wrong according to Texas v. White.
If you’re going to try and make distinctions, it helps to be factually correct.
@catperson: What does your vision of closing Gitmo entail?
@MikeJ: National Guard isn’t subject to PC. But I’ve lost track of what your point is supposed to be. What are you getting at?
@catperson: Only after attempting to try KSM in NY. Once the shit hit the fan there, they were forced to try him in military tribunals, which have, predictably, become a clusterfuck.
White Trash Liberal
US vs. Hamdan was prior to Obama. The military tribunal process was crafted during the Bush administration.
@Omnes Omnibus: The unicorn and rainbow versions is letting the ones we know are innocent go free and subjecting the rest to regular trials. (And accepting that a lot of them would go free because of, you know, torture.)
But that’s too hard and too messy. So let’s go with indefinite detention instead.
The thing that makes me feel kind of hopeless about all this is that there is absolutely no upside to trying and dismantle the post 9/11 military security state. It takes a lot of political will to get it done, jobs will be lost, and when the next act of terrorism happens you’ll be blamed for it (regardless of whether your actions had anything to do with it or not.)
@catperson: The 101st Airborne Division is subject to PC.
@White Trash Liberal: Was that the first Hamdan decision? I’ll have to google.
But I agree, tribunals started under Bush. Obama chose to continue them.
I think that was after Congress kept him from closing Gitmo. What was he left with, if not the military tribunals?
Unlike much of your bold talk around here, this, I am entirely prepared to accept at face value.
We’re told the Oklahoma City bombers referred to the kids in the daycare center as “collateral damage”, after all.
@catperson: Are you suggesting that indefinite detention is preferable to the tribunals?
Yeah, but there are countries who’ve gone through the process of adjusting to the political reality of terrorism (if not the act). Not many, but they exist. There exists the possibility of an electorate who have been educated about sacrificing liberty for security.
A national discussion about this would actually be useful, but you aren’t gonna get it by focusing myopically on drones, and you certainly aren’t going to get it from a politician whose main point is scaring people into getting angry over gun legislation.
As usual I think you are correct, John.
Guy on the next stool: “(Yawn)! Wanna ‘nuther beer?”
@Baud: Christ on a cracker Baud….who is saying that? You used this on me earlier.
If a fool is doing a good thing which might help to a good end, I will support that fool in the specific endeavor.
If one of my guys is doing something stupid, I will call them out for it and give them shit until they learn, but I will still support.
We need more clarification and transparency on this issue. The administration has not been on the lead in this issue, so Paul has been helpful (god I hate typing that, but it is the administrations fault for letting things get here).
White Trash Liberal
Todd is delightfully Hobbesian
I saw it a good bit on the tubes in connection with Ron Paul. I have no beef with what you just said.
ETA: As I said in that same comment, this particular filibuster doesn’t bother me.
So after Congress refused to have them moved to US soil, the people in Gitmo were supposed to sit there with no chance of release and no kind of trial whatsoever? And that was what you wanted for them?
Why, exactly, are you in favor of indefinite detention with no trials at all?
@Keith G: but, look, I don’t think it’s terribly surprising that if you ask a government official if the government has the power to do X, he by default is going to say “yes,” except in cases where X has been clearly and specifically forbidden. All the answers are going to take the form of this: “well, I don’t anticipate X ever being necessary except in some kind of crazy philosophy-class hypothetical.” And that answer doesn’t mean OMG he’s totally frothing at the mouth to do X and we have to protect ourselves before it’s too late!
Idk, i think we were completely right going into Afghanistan. We, and by we, I mean Bush, fucked it up royally.
@White Trash Liberal: If this blog were important enough to draw “serious” attention (which it isn’t), that commentor would be on my top five list for NSA minder, prime-time shift.
(/leftover 70s DFH)
Hamsher hooked up with Grover too.
Big difference – Weaver and Koresh made a choice to subject children and innocents to the consequences of standoff. Nobody made a lawless choice at OKC besides McVeigh.
Smooch to you too, sweetums.
I’m with you. Supported Afghanistan at the time, hoped and prayed I was wrong about Iraq, but I wasn’t.
John Cole, rather than settling for “my fellow citizens are not sufficiently enlightened and so I must take to my bed,” you try to persuade? (Sounds more harsh than I meant it. I do think these issues are important but the conversation is way frustrating because it seems to start from the end — “The Constitution is being violated.” “This is horrible.” Etc, etc.)
There have been innumerable threads on these issues and over and over (seemingly) good faith questions/objections. “What process would have been sufficient for Al-Awlaki?” “What about the guy holed up in a cabin (heh heh) and vowing to kill? What process does that guy get?” “What do you do with someone who does not want to submit to process?” So — specifics. No “security state” — say what it is that you object to. Say what it does. Point to actual results. No “brown people overseas” dodge. Make the argument. Maybe that’s the problem with civil libertarians, they haven’t actually made the argument that sticks. But that’s the fault of the advocate or the argument, not the audience.
Cole, your most-common objection seems to be backdraft and concern for normal people — you’ve written again and again about the weddings blown up and how of course (agree) people hate us. But that’s not so much civil liberties or “killing Americans.” That’s more in the realm of the AUMF. I don’t know — I feel sympathetic to the argument and then the way it is unrolled seems always unsatisfying.
No, indefinite detention is definitely not better. Is your point that it’s not Obama’s fault? It’s not entirely his fault and I firmly believe he had better intentions when he took office and was forced to pick the least worst option in a lot of cases. That doesn’t mean that least worst option doesn’t still suck. Could have have tried again with Congress and fought back against the scaremongering? My recollection is that he didn’t really try to do that. But I’m not trying to demonize Obama.
I think if we only think about this in terms of drones we’re missing the point. It’s more that I think there’s a problem with a mindset that says that because it’s easier to shoot on sight, we should do that. It’s easier when we can do it with flying robots but in principle it’s not any different than the NYPD gunning someone down because their movements are consistent with someone who robs banks.
Again, my problem is with the whole “War on Terror” concept. It’s just as doomed and pointless as the War on Drugs.
Except that, as was demonstrated with Ron Paul, 9 times out of 10 what the fool is doing will actually hinder your desired outcome. People on the left loved Ron Paul because he said mean things about the “War on Terror,” but they somehow never managed to realize that those things went hand-in-hand with his belief that we shouldn’t have a standing army and should pay mercenaries to hunt down terrorists.
You need to look at the entire thing that the fool is advocating before you decide his foolishness is helpful to your cause. In this case, the fool is whipping up “black helicopter” fears in the NRA crowd while not actually questioning the overseas use of drones.
That’s exactly what McVeigh said about the daycare center, but he didn’t have the full authority of the state behind him.
And McVeigh was a deluded murderer.
You seemed to think that there was no confusion between military and police actions before 9/11.
I mentioned the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion, in which 13,000 troops rounded up anybody who erected a pole in the town square. This was no fair to mention as coming before 9/11 because it also took place before provisions were put into place because people were concerned about the confusion of military and police.
So my next attempt at pre 9/11 mixture of police and military was Little Rock in 1957. And then you ignored the 101st being there.
I think it was a good idea to send the military into Little Rock.
Not to mention the fact that Waco started when police arrived to serve a warrant and were shot at. It wasn’t Bill C and Emperor Ming sitting in the war room that decided to send over a B-52 out of the blue.
My point was that, in successive comments, you made comments that taken together could lead someone to the conclusion that you supported indefinite detention over the flawed mechanism for due process provided by the tribunals.
“Rand Paul is a racist, homophobic, conspiracy theorist”
@MikeJ: Ah, I see. You have an absolutist take on my comment. My point is that despite history and actions taken to clarify the distinction, we are operating in a very grey area between military and police action. See my earlier comment about my position on the War on Terror as a concept.
Or just continue to respond on the assumption that I think things were clear cut and easy peasy before 9/11.
Now you’re being obtuse. I’d like to know how the parents of the OKC kids deliberately put them in harms way.
Please proceed, governor.
…ahhh yes, Wr0ng [email protected] Cole dusting off his Republican stripes again. It’s never really that far from the surface for him to throw in those little comments.
“I agree with Greenwald, Garry Johnson has some good ideas”
“I really admire [fat ba$stard] Christie”
“and I don’t think he [Obama] is despite some pretty deplorable decisions…(obvious concern troll comment)”
@FlipYrWhig: I get the difference between a hypothetical and a policy goal….but yesterday’s hypothetical can become today’s “necessity”.
I want, I expect, this president to use his renowned intellect to understand the implications of the trail he is blazing in this regard. I think we need him to set in stone policies that are rational, fair and transparent in regard to this topic.
George Washington are highly cognizant that he was the setter of so many precedents. I really respect the care he gave to the consideration of so many of his actions.
In this new and rapidly advancing area of technical development, Obama is the precedent setter. His standards will be influential and his process will be followed and added to. Maybe in this area, this is Obama’s Washington moment. I would like him to get this right.
Rachel Maddow just complained on her show about the amount of hate mail she receives over her droooonez hysteria.
I’ve never seen her whine like that before.
@David Koch: What a crock of shit you are shoveling. That is a TOTAL mischaracterization of what she said and HOW she said it. She said “bring it assholes, bring it and I’ll read it”.
It was bad enough him having fantasies (It shoulda been meeeeeeee!”) about being O in front of Hillary, but now he thinks he’s Jimmy Stewart? This is an outrage! What won’t this clown fap to at taxpayer expense?
Rand motherfuckin’ Paul, Uber Patriot. Rejoice, Firebaggers! you now have a leader worthy of your concerns. Out of the wilderness fer sher now.
Srsly? It doesn’t give you a single moment’s pause that he’s a moronic, entitled shitbag who is mouthing these words for ZERO reason other than political self-interest?
Just the fact that he’s uttering them is good enough, fer realz?
@raven: I completely disagree. Moreover, someone as intelligent as Rachel would never pull a Bush and say “Bring it”.
She was clearly upset with the reaction she receives. What she was vainly trying to say was, “I don’t care about your complaints, I will still my cover my fear of drones”.
But of course if she didn’t care, she wouldn’t even have to say it.
f space that
Funny how we are so concerned about drones and the deficit and all number of things now that there’s a Dem in office. Fuck Rand Paul, you know what he cares about: being able to keep black folks from voting, stealing as much of your Social Security and Medicare that he can, letting any corporation do whatever the fuck it wants. This is just another way to get the Democrat. Make common cause with this asshole and see where it gets you.
I’m assuming that like any good Libertarian, Paul is apoplectic about the idea of the FBI using a drone to send a few hellfire missiles through the window of some militia compound in Idaho in order to end a standoff with federal agents, but probably wouldn’t be so troubled by, say, Sheriff Arpiao in Arizona using drones to level a house occupied by Hispanic drug dealers in a standoff with deputies. Ok, so maybe 2 out of 3 were American citizens and not illegals. Eggs, omelettes, etc., etc.
@eemom: You’re mistaking my appreciation of the act of someone, anyone, talking about civil liberties in that forum with admiration for the person doing it.
Rand Paul is an entitled racist douchebag, just like his dad. But that doesn’t mean he’s incapable of doing something good, even if it’s probably for the wrong reasons. Don’t worry, I won’t be sending him any campaign contributions.
Was John McCain wrong to call torture torture and condemn it? No. Does it make him less of a bitter old attention whore? No.
I absolutely wish a Democrat had stepped up and done this years ago, but I’ll take what I can get.
One other problem with reporting about drones is that they’ve become a catch-all term for any remote control aircraft, regardless of size or equipment.
So we’re having a panicked debate about the use of “drones” domestically and conjuring up the image that they’re Predators when they’re really just tricked out hobby planes.
The story today about a commercial aircraft having a close miss with a “drone” is a good example.
f space that
@catperson: It’s not real, so him saying it means nothing.
@f space that: And the Tea Party was astroturf and yet only a fool would say that it hasn’t had an impact.
Paul’s intentions don’t matter in this case–if it gets the issue out and there’s real public discussion (about something other than “REPUBLICANS DEFY OBAMA–Whose dick is bigger??!?!) then it’s a good thing. I don’t have to give a shit about Paul himself to be glad this happened.
@Keith G: there are procedures in place. Critics don’t like them. They say they make everything a matter of one person’s judgment. If we don’t want it to be that way, we need legislation. I’m not holding my breath.
Cole, which part of “al-Awlaki was actively involved in offensive military operations against the United States, which makes him a legitimate military target under the AUMF and the Geneva Conventions” are you continuing to have trouble understanding?
@burnspbesq: Cole, during the course of his move leftward, has more or less adopted a position of opposing any and all non-defensive uses of force by the US. It is a valid position.
@Mnemosyne: @Omnes Omnibus:
I went back and realized why you thought I was advocating indefinite detention. I was being sarcastic when I said this:
I thought the context made it clear, but it didn’t. Sorry.
@catperson: It created confusion. That is why I asked the question.
Actually, no, I (and several others) were reacting to your comment at #79:
That’s why you got so many questions about what your preferred alternative was between indefinite detention and “kangaroo courts.” That comment seemed to put you firmly on the side of indefinite detention.
Isn’t that the second one this year?
Isn’t that the second one SINCE THE GRAND BARGAIN WHERE RETHUGS AGREED TO STOP FILIBUSTERING?
What the screaming fuck?
Didn’t we have an opportunity to reform the filibuster, and decided for the good of “comity” to just accept a handshake from the Rethugs?
I have to wonder how Dianne Feinstein feels about this now.
Forum Transmitted Disease
@fuckwit: Very, very sure she’s just fine with it.
That’s my understanding of her comments as well. Still it is hard to deny she felt a sting from being attacked on this issue (one in which I agree with her largely)
AHH onna Droid
@catperson: Lolwut. Dorner was black. Therefore Ruby Ridge it was not, okay? Remember the irs suicide plane guy and how rw media said he had a point? Well, some ppl thought Dorner had a point, just not the rw fucks who are coddled by tptb because they keep corporate sellouts in power.
If neo confederates land in court with weapons charges, it’s tyranny. If a blah person makes threats against institutions (or a sufficiently smelly DFH) it’s SWAT time.
@Baud: Amen to that. Rand Paul is a worthless, grandstanding hypocrite. He doesn’t give a damn about the drone program or indivdual rights-he just wants to take advantage of kicking the President when he is down. ( Due to the sequester result). The man is complete scum.
Besides I can think of a couple of hunting lodges in Wisconsin and Kentucky that could use a good drone strike. Especially if Paul Ryan or Rand Paul is longing in them sipping a Scotch and toasting the killing of social safety net.