Sen. Rand Paul stood for America when many did not. I applaud the GOP Senators who stood with him, the GOP from the House that came over to show suppot. I also applaud the Dems that stood with him, few but at least they had the courage and honesty to do and say what is right.
I hear he has a luncheon with the pres today. I wonder if he can still talk?
Seriously though, I don't know why more people are not concerned about this use of drones to attack and kill people. I find it very scary and am dumbfounded that this is coming from Obama.
Why aren't the Dems questioning this?
On the positive side, at least it is out in the open, but I still feel very uncomfortable about this and who it is coming from and what the future scenarios could be as a result.
Drones are new technology and alot of countries already have and use them besides us. I have no problem with the drones but what I do have a problem with is, if true, one man being able to make the call to use them against terrorists on american soil. If we had them during 9/11 that may have been a good thing, but it should never ever be up to one man no matter who he is, to make that call as imminent. I dont see this as a partisan issue at all, and needs further clarity of who would make that call. Other than that, Im good with it. I read an article a few months back that drones can be used for a multitude of reasons by a multitude of businesses like real estate and such. But the military weaponized ones? Yeah, need more answers and more than one person making that call. imo
LOL, Never ever did I ever think I would see eye to eye with a Rand Paul, but I agree with some of his points. And it should be handled apart from the confirmation of Brennan. imo It should be a stand alone issue and given much priority as such.
Not so much a "terrorist" as this issue is with killing Americans on American soil. For the citizens of America we have something called sue process and this drone theory being floated by Obama and Holder is against the constitution.
It would have been apart from Brennan if Holder and Obama just answered a simple question or if Reid allowed a vote yesterday. But because neither happened Rand did what he had to do.
Yes, like I said, its not a partisan issue, I know Lindsey Graham is on board as well as a few other republicans and some dems are against it as well. I do think the people are watching how this plays out. I understand the pres did answer Rands questions but obviously the answer was not what he wanted to hear? I dunno, just what I heard. I also heard the president will be addressing the american people about this issue, so we will see.
So its Paul Ryan? I know CNN said it was Rand Paul cause they were talking about it in conjunction with this filabuster. hmmm. It could be age I guess? Mine! lol
Both Obama and Holder said that while they don't see it happening it can be done.
You are wrong about Graham, he called Rand's assertion "ridiculous". This is the civil war for the GOP. Young guns, Rand, Cruz, Rubio and others against the old guard, Graham and McCain. Glad to see this happen as this means you have new guys playing big roles with new ideas who are more concerned with the people and not having the seat in Congress.
Teko - I only knew because I'd just read the article about Obama inviting Ryan to lunch.
"Young guns, Rand, Cruz, Rubio and others against the old guard, Graham and McCain. Glad to see this happen as this means you have new guys playing big roles with new ideas who are more concerned with the people and not having the seat in Congress."
Personally, I don't think these "young guns" are doing either the American people or the Republican party, one iota of good. Don't let them fool you for one minute; they fully expect to make Congress their life long career, just like all the others have. Not to mention that they're trying to take the country backward by about 40 yrs.
WASHINGTON — Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham on Thursday assailed Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster of an Obama administration nominee over drone policy a day earlier, suggesting an emerging split in the Republican Party over antiterrorism tactics.
Multimedia Challenges for Brennan
Challenges for BrennanClose VideoSee More Videos » .Related
The Caucus: Republicans, Led by Rand Paul, Finally End Filibuster (March 6, 2013) Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (58) »
Mr. McCain, of Arizona, and Mr. Graham, of South Carolina, who often team up on national security policy issues, ridiculed Mr. Paul’s suggestion during his more than 12-hour appearance on the Senate floor that the president could order a domestic drone strike on an American citizen without due process. Mr. Paul had said that he would try to hold up the nomination of John O. Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency unless the administration answered unequivocally that President Obama did not have that power.
Mr. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, noted that Mr. Paul had raised the idea that the antiwar activist Jane Fonda could have been singled out for a strike during her criticism of that war. He said that claim was unfounded and that the filibuster, which received the backing of members of the Senate Republican leadership, sent a message that was a “disservice to Americans.”
“To allege that the United States, our government, would drop a drone Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda, that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy into the realm of the ridiculous,” Mr. McCain said.
Mr. Graham said he did not remember Republican critics attacking President George W. Bush for employing drone strikes, and he said the question for Republicans was, “What are we up to here?”
Mr. Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky, earned an outpouring of praise from conservatives and was joined on the Senate floor by top Republican leaders as he called into question the Obama administration’s development of drone policy.
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader and a fellow Kentuckian, congratulated him on the filibuster and noted “his extraordinary effort.”
But Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham did not share the leadership’s enthusiasm for the filibuster, which took on an antiterrorism approach that Republicans have strongly supported in the past.
It remained unclear Thursday afternoon exactly when the Senate would vote on whether to move toward a final confirmation vote for Mr. Brennan. It could come as late as Saturday, but Senate Democratic leaders said they were hoping that Republicans would consent to a vote on Thursday, or Friday at the latest.
The White House took steps to move the nomination along. The spokesman, Jay Carney, told reporters that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had sent Mr. Paul a letter saying that the president did not have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American on United States soil who is not engaged in terrorism.
Holder would not rule out the President being legally able to order the killing of an American. If you want to take the MSNBC approach fine be blind. He stood up for YOU.
Barb nothing they have said or done has been anything but good. And they are not trying to take anything back 40 years. Think it's time you did some research into these guys. They are not looking to be Senators for life, they have higher ambitions.
Holder did not and would not give the answer of NO. He said in testimony that he didn't see it used that way but would not say NO and even made a legal justification for the President to have that power. The day after Sen. Paul's filabuster he came out with the NO.
It was not about Brennan as Rand said, it was about the President haveing more power then the constitution. As I said if you want to stay blind to the power that Holder almost gave the President then fine. But no President should have that kind of power. The power to target an American citizen on American soil without the DUE PROCESS. 5th Amendment.
No matter who you are you should have been behind getting a firm answer to the question, and you should be behind the answer that finally was given of NO.
McCain was not my choice in 2008, nor was Mitt my choice in 2012, but I stood behind them as in my eyes better then what we have.
Yes we know Rubio is going to run in 2016 and it would be a huge shock if he didn't run. I would not be suprised if Rand ran. I am not so sure on Cruz.
My mother used to always say ignorance is bliss. She sure was right! I dont like Rand, he is a cliffhugger . McCain, I like the guy but agree with him sometimes and most of the time not much. He showed how intelligent he was in picking a sara to run as his vp. He appears to be trying to stay relevent. It would appear the gop hawks and the teapeters are infighting. Dont ya love it when they eat their own? Rand wants the presidency, so does Rubio, Cruz is a cliffhugger. In a nutshell, I think overall Americal is tired of radical and looking for something more balanced. Run Hillary and put everyone out of they misery?
"Barb nothing they have said or done has been anything but good. And they are not trying to take anything back 40 years. Think it's time you did some research into these guys. They are not looking to be Senators for life, they have higher ambitions."
All depends on our point of view; you're a lot younger than I am, so even though we might be on the same side of things you lean more right than I do. I tend to run down the middle of the road, because too far either side, there's a ditch and some of them have pretty slippery slopes.
I do think some of these guys are trying to set us back....... it took many years to get Roe v Wade and other laws; they want to upend all those and make things a lot harder on women than they need to be. I'm not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice and I don't think any politician has a right to decide what's right for a woman regarding birth control, abortion or any other medical treatment.
While I'm well past child bearing age, I'd stand up and defend any/all of their rights. They and their doctors are the only ones who know what's right for them.
"......Jay Carney, told reporters that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had sent Mr. Paul a letter saying that the president did not have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American on United States soil who is not engaged in terrorism."
The trouble is, people are so easily terrified these days and the historical pattern is to give up your rights in exchange for percieved security. This is my primary beef against the 'media' - both Right and Left. Fear sells, Fear gains readers/viewers. Gun ownership is the perfect example. If you can get half the people afraid of semi-automatic weapons and the other half fearful they'll be taken away, you achieve 100% market share.
Copyright 1994-2018MedHelp.All rights reserved. MedHelp is a division of Vitals Consumer Services, LLC.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. MedHelp is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.