Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Rand Paul's filibuster

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stilicho25



Joined: 05 Apr 2010

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:38 pm    Post subject: Rand Paul's filibuster Reply with quote

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

Curious as to why this isn't a bigger deal. Holder saying it was legal to kill Americans in extreme circumstances seems to me a very big deal. Has the death of Chavez overshadowed it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
“I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said. “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

...

By the 2 p.m. hour, Paul said he would continue to speak as long as he can, but he admitted: “Ultimately, I can’t win. There’s not enough votes.”


This is what a filibuster ought to be: not some pathetic gentlemen's agreement to give a 40 senator minority a veto, but one or more people from the minority who, knowing they cannot triumph in debate, sitting on the floor and talking themselves hoarse specifically to give time for public opinion to rise up and make the difference.

I'm no fan of Rand Paul in general, but I agree with him here unreservedly. It should be a big deal. "We can send drones to kill you with no trial, but we promise we won't, unless, you know, terrorism or something, in which case, tough luck," is totally unacceptable.

Quote:
I would be here if it were a Republican president doing this.


I believe him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Rand Paul's filibuster Reply with quote

stilicho25 wrote:
Curious as to why this isn't a bigger deal.

Rank-and-file Republicans want to retain the power to execute Americans without trial for when the next Republican is in power. Democrats believe that everything Obama does is justified because he's their guy, even though they'd bring out the pitch-forks and torches if a Republican did the same.

Heroic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ranman



Joined: 18 Aug 2012

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"We can send drones to kill you with no trial, but we promise we won't, unless, you know, terrorism or something, in which case, tough luck,"


I knew 11 years ago when the whole "war on terrorism" began than it was just a another excuse for the government to do what they want. Oh, illegal wiretaps? Terrorism. Torturing and imprisoning people without trial? Terrorism. Prosecuting whistleblowers who show how corrupt we are? Terrorism. Drone strikes to kill American citizens? Terrorism.

Can't wait for the roof to fall on their heads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just about the only recent filibuster that seems worthwhile. I don't like or agree with Paul on most things, but as they say where I'm from, bless his heart. I think that just about the only domestic use of drones that seems legitimate to me is in response to a natural disaster, such as to be able to search for survivors above a hurricane or fire or some such, other than that, I don't really think they should be used.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

McCain and Graham, the two bitchy church ladies of the senate, scold Paul over his filibuster.

Quote:

“To allege that the United States of America, our government would drop a drone hellfire missle on Jane Fonda, that, that is… that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous,” McCain said.

...

Still, McCain emphasized that “if someone is an enemy combatant, that enemy combatant has nowhere to hide: not in a cafe, not anywhere.”

“We’ve done, I think, a disservice to a lot of Americans by making them believe they’re somehow in danger from their government: they’re not,” he added. “But we are in danger from a dedicated, longstanding, easily replacable leadership enemy that is hell-bent on our destruction, and this leads us to having to do things that perhaps we haven’t had to do in other more conventional wars.”


So he implies Rand is in the realm of fantastic paranoia, then reinforces that he'd be totally okay with drone strikes against "enemy combatants" no matter where they are. Insistent upon them, really. Nowhere to hide terrorists!

Quote:
“To my Republican colleagues, I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone, do you?” Graham said Thursday. “They had a drone program back then, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up. What are we up to here?”


I don't remember, "The President can assassinate US citizens by drone in an extrajudical if he wants, but he promises he probably won't," being a stated position under Bush. Even if it was, though, protesting injustice doesn't have a statute of limitations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stilicho25



Joined: 05 Apr 2010

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like that, butters and McCain as bitchy church ladies.

With the war on drugs, the war on terror, and democratic fear of militias, domestic drones will not end well. I don't think that's an implausible scenario for them to be used. The war on drugs has been steadily militarized, and I see this as a next step. Or the next weird armed group like the weavers will get a hellfire delivered unto their cabin, to insure "police safety". I better put some ecm on my tin foil helmet. :shock:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/03/rand-paul-gets-a-letter-from-eric-holder.html

Holder has now issued the letter giving Paul what he wants. To bad they still won't budge on the top secret hit list.


Last edited by Leon on Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Quote:
“To my Republican colleagues, I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone, do you?” Graham said Thursday. “They had a drone program back then, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up. What are we up to here?”

I don't remember, "The President can assassinate US citizens by drone in an extrajudical if he wants, but he promises he probably won't," being a stated position under Bush.

It's pretty relevant that Bush never killed an American without trial using drones, where Obama has on at least two occasions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has one Senator's grandstanding ever been so effective?

Here's what Rand accomplished this week:

* He connected Brennan, the subsequently confirmed director the CIA, to his integral role in formulating the current extralegal drone policy

* He contrasted the traditional Jimmy Stewart filibuster with the pernicious silent-40 cloture filibuster more favored by the other Senator from Kentucky

* He significantly eroded popular support for a loathsome but strangely popular policy

* He lured the administration on the record to submit an unqualified limitation to its increasingly ominous national security privilege

Bravo. Imagine what the man could've done with a catheter!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I kept it on in the background for almost all of it. It was pretty good, less Ted Cruz etc trying to wiggle in on it.

I like the filibuster tradition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/politics/visions-of-drones-in-us-skies-touch-bipartisan-nerve.html?pagewanted=print

First, we start with typical propaganda:

Quote:
“It’s not merely the black helicopter crowd of the folks on the far right,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups. “What Rand Paul had to say about drones absolutely fired up conspiracy theorists on the left as well as the right.”


There is absolutely no reason for the above to be in this article. None.

Even the title:

Quote:
Visions of Drones Swarming U.S. Skies Hit Bipartisan Nerve


They even engage in shaming language in the title! You god damn quacks in middle America having "visions". Kulaks, the lot of you.

Anyway:

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The debate goes to the heart of a deeply rooted American suspicion about the government, the military and the surveillance state: the specter of drones streaking through the skies above American cities and towns, controlled by faceless bureaucrats and equipped to spy or kill.

That Big Brother imagery — conjured up by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky during a more than 12-hour filibuster this week — has animated a surprisingly diverse swath of political interests that includes mainstream civil liberties groups, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, conservative research groups, liberal activists and right-wing conspiracy theorists.

They agree on little else. But Mr. Paul’s soliloquy has tapped into a common anxiety on the left and the right about the dangers of unchecked government. And it has exposed fears about ultra-advanced technologies that are fueled by the increasingly fine line between science fiction and real life.


I find this interesting.

The NYT advocates wars for democracy and freedom because it cares so much about the world and the "long-suffering" citizens of wherever.

But in an article about the USA deliberately and indiscriminately killing foreigners and citizens with skyrobots the NYT now doesn't give a shit. They roll out the ethnic-activist, bully, propagandist and linguistic terrorist Mark Potok to shame people away from even thinking about this.

Maybe the NYT doesn't care about the "long-suffering" people of wherever? If not, then why does the NYT fully support and advocate for every single war (past, present and future) of the American imperial state?

Pravda. The NYT is our version of Pravda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International