Rand Paul does something I (mostly) approve of

[Elok]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/06/rand-paul-begins-talking-filibuster-against-john-brennan/?wprss=rss_homepage

Holder probably was thinking mostly of drones as a direct response to actual on-the-ground terrorism, e.g. shooting down a 9/11 wannabe--hence the caveat. But as for the rest:

Flipping out about drone strikes
Flipping out about even theoretical drone strikes on U.S. soil
Filibustering
Actual filibustering instead of that announcing-intent bs

(summary: Eric Holder declined to rule out the possibility of drone strikes in the U.S. in the future under extraordinary circumstances; Rand Paul is therefore filibustering Brennan's confirmation as head of the CIA with an actual talking-on-the-Senate-floor filibuster)

EDIT: on reflection, what makes this so troubling is that it isn't "warfare" in any meaningful sense. Wording adjusted accordingly.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah, I guess we should have congressional approval before every effin' drone strike. Somehow, drones magically change the constitutional role of Commander in Chief from POTUS to the Congress.

[DinoDoc]

It looks like multiple Senators are joining in as well.

[MichaeltheGreat]

They needed something new to whine about.

[Alexander's Horse]

next they should build a fuhrer bunker to micro the battlefield from Capitol Hill

[DinoDoc]

They needed something new to whine about.

Well the President claiming the right to engage in extra-judicial executions on US soil seems like as good an excuse as any.

[Elok]

Yeah, I guess we should have congressional approval before every effin' drone strike. Somehow, drones magically change the constitutional role of Commander in Chief from POTUS to the Congress.

I would also oppose using ground troops to blast the hell out of crowds of people who may or may not be terrorists on the grounds that they're males of a certain age, then telling Congress about it maybe a month later. Especially if the soldiers in question were taking orders from the CIA and state department with minimal input from actual military leaders. And the targets were, much of the time, not actually doing anything threatening at the moment, or even armed, making the difference between such attacks and plain assassination largely semantic. And over 200 kids died in the process.

[Uncle Sparky]

I only read the title, not the OP, but shouldn't Rand Paul's suicidal shooting spree of fellow Tea Party members be in the dead pool thread? btw- I also almost approve of this horrific act of his.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well the President claiming the right to engage in extra-judicial executions on US soil seems like as good an excuse as any.

Nice try, except he didn't do anything of the sort. Nor did his attorney general.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I would also oppose using ground troops to blast the hell out of crowds of people who may or may not be terrorists on the grounds that they're males of a certain age, then telling Congress about it maybe a month later. Especially if the soldiers in question were taking orders from the CIA and state department with minimal input from actual military leaders. And the targets were, much of the time, not actually doing anything threatening at the moment, or even armed, making the difference between such attacks and plain assassination largely semantic. And over 200 kids died in the process.

Oh yeah, and we're doing that all over the US. In fact, all over the world we just plink random slobs just for fun.

The difference isn't semantic at all. We're engaged in a war with stateless unlawful combatant organizations. If they don't want to get hit by drones, they can surrender. If they hide among civilians and continue to affiliate with al Qaeda and affiliates, too ****ing bad for them.

[DinoDoc]

Nice try, except he didn't do anything of the sort. Nor did his attorney general.

In point of fact it is exactly what the AG said when he asserted legal authority for the President to execute US citizens on US soil without due process of law.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Maybe you need to refer to the actual quote. Holder said, in effect, he couldn't absolutely, 100% rule out use of drone strikes in some circumstances, subject to POTUS approval and consistent with the Constitution. Which eliminates extrajudicial executions and limits the use to POTUS' authority as Commander in Chief, so all you've got there is a million to one hypothetical about a war fought on US soil.

And no, it's not black helicopters and gummint gon' take yer gunz, either. If that's the sort of fantasy world nonsense you want to get your panties in a bunch over, be my guest.

In the cold war, we didn't rule out use of NBC weapons on American soil. So big, ****ing deal.

[Elok]

Oh yeah, and we're doing that all over the US. In fact, all over the world we just plink random slobs just for fun.

Actually, that has happened more than once, if you recall, in Vietnam and Afghanistan. When people think they can get away with murder, they try it. But those were Army. The CIA et al historically preferred to waste people for practical reasons--like noncompliance with U.S. foreign policy goals.

The difference isn't semantic at all. We're engaged in a war with stateless unlawful combatant organizations. If they don't want to get hit by drones, they can surrender. If they hide among civilians and continue to affiliate with al Qaeda and affiliates, too ****ing bad for them.

We're at "war" with a bunch of washed-up losers who, after years of planning, caught us napping more than a decade ago. They have not posed a credible threat since and in fact barely exist as a single entity anymore. We're fighting a brand more than an actual organization. And, as our means of doing so does not differ in its results from sending in Hollywood-style superspies with garrotes to slit their throats while they're on the crapper (except in efficiency), I'm not going to dignify it by pretending it resembles actual warfare. They are, in effect, assassins.

The administration wants us to take their word for it that all the people it assassinates are, in fact, terrorists. We have no official or reliable means of evaluating that claim, since it's all secret. IIUC, they eventually report it to certain Congressional committees, and we figure out a bit of it later via nosy reporters. I don't trust the former, and we shouldn't have to depend on the latter. To be fair, I think the substantial majority of their targets are actually up to something ugly. But that doesn't make it okay, and I don't trust every future administration to be so just with the power of this precedent, especially as drones become cheaper, more powerful, and less newsworthy as the strikes go on and on and on and on...

I could say a good deal more on this subject, but time doesn't permit. Later, maybe.

[Elok]

I JonMiller'ed, sorry.

[regexcellent]

Why is it so bad when it's drones but not so bad when it's just ordinary cops shooting people or something? Is it the whole ~robot assassins~ thing?