Comments about ‘Rand Paul filibustering Brennan nomination to lead CIA over drone questions’

Is there any way to filibuster Rand Paul?

What is so stupid about this is his concern about drones. What is the difference here if it is an unmanned plane going after someone, or some misguided government show down at Ruby Ridge, or the use of tear gas at a compound outside of Plano Texas by the Branch Dividians.

He, like the gun debate people, we are focusing on the wrong issue. I don't care if it is a drone, a snipers rifle, and armored vehicle delivering huge amounts of gas, or a few rouge cops with night sticks beating a black man in the middle of an intersection.

If an American citizen decides to become terrorists, and be a representative of Al Qaeda, they are enemy combatants. Al Qaeda declared war on the all of US. Doesn't matter if they are in Pakistan, Mali, or Idaho. Doesn't matter if they are blond with blue eyes. They have declared war on every one of us...and under rules of war, they can be taken out, without trial, without Miranda, without lawyers.

If members don't like the game they started... change the game they are playing. In the meantime, so sympathy from me.

Rand Paul seems more interested in keeping his mane in the headlines than he is about anything else.

Sometimes I wonder why we have the filibuster and then an issue like this comes up. If it is OK to assassinate an American on foreign soil for a crime they are only suspected of, why would it then not be OK to do so here?

As Americans, we are guaranteed due process under the law. Our government never has the right to take away our lives without it, regardless of our location.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue.

@ One old man. Do you even know WHY he is filibustering? Its because Eric Holder says Obama has the authority to use drones to kill Americans without due process! Are you ok with that?

I disagree with Rand Paul on many, many issues, same goes for his friends in this Lee and Cruz, and I'm sure his three hours has also included him saying a bunch of things I disagree with as well. But when it comes to targeted killings and the Brennan nomination, I agree with them.

Not likely. When he winds up, there be scores of news reporters falling over each other to be first to get an exclusive interview.

You know, unlike some on my side, I have not been the least bit bothered by Obama using drones to kill terriorists in the Middle-East. I'd much rather use that method than risk the lives of American service personnel. This is one area where I support what the President is doing. Using them on American soil? Well that is a different issue.

Back to drones in the Middle-East, I only hope that if and when we get completely out of Afghanistan/Pakistan, the terriorists will still have to worry about what might be flying above their heads when they walk outside. Or if where they are sleeping is safe. Drones and cruise missiles are a great weapon. Accurate, effective, and most importantly they saves lives of American military.

Kudos for McCain and Graham for asking more questions about Benghazi. Obama, Panetta, and Hillary have avoiding answering those questions for almost 6 months!

The goal posts are changing on their answers, and there is much to be dissected. For example, was the request from the embassy heroes for help turned down? Why no help was sent for 8 hours? What did Obama know and when did he know it?

To my knowledge Obama is the only POTUS to leave his people to die and go to Vegas, not even picking up the phone to see if and when they died. Abominable.

That all 535 members of congress don't insist on answers is unconscionable!

The Bill of Rights is the most important body of law since the 10 Commandments!

Thank you, Rand Paul, for standing up for it!

And thank you to our Utah senator Mike Lee for having the guts to join him. It's about time we stopped rubber-stamping our march towards tyranny.

Isn't "life" one of our inalienable rights?

This goes against the very foundation of our government. Good for these Senators for standing up for what is right.

@fressnogirl
and what do we do with people here in the US when they are held up somewhere and actively engaging in activities that have and/or are killing americans? Do we wait them out for years letting them continue to hurt and kill their fellow americans so we can give them their due process? no we kill them. Is this also an assassination?

The reason we have criminal trials is to protect innocent people from mistaken accusations. To say, "He is a 'terrorist' and therefore gives up all rights and protections under the law" assumes that those making the accusations are both infallible and incorruptible. I've yet to meet any person who fits that bill.

I don't care what party you belong to, this is a dangerous road we are on.

I lost faith in Rand Paul when he endorsed Romney for president. But he is addressing some issues here that I feel very strongly about. The president should not have the kind of power to make kill lists and kill anybody he feels like without due process. They are murdering children overseas with drone strikes all the time. Of course our "leader" never acknowledged this when he was hidin behind the sandy hook children like the coward he is.

Hosea 1:4 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge ...

While this scripture pertains to knowledge of God's Law, it has application to citizen involvement in government.

The constitution and it's amendments grant citizens the right to trial. Sen Paul's position in this filibuster is to protect that right.

Eric Holder says there is no intention to use drones against US citizens. Any sane thinker would think that surely must be true. Sen. Paul is saying change the wording of the bill to explicitly state that drone strikes will not be used against US citizens. The concern that I have is the reluctance to include this wording in the bill.

On the radio today, I heard that it is in line with international law. NO, US law is the only one that applies here.

To those objecting, if you were declared a terrorist would you not want a trial to prove your innocence, or guilt?

I am grateful that some lawmakers have the courage to stand up for that which they perceive to be right.

@ UtahBlueDevil

Who determines if someone is a terrorist? What if someone is mistakenly suspected of terrorism? Listen to what Sen. Paul is saying on C-Span, there is a difference between a combatant who has a gun pointed at a soldier or someone who has a bomb in hand and someone who is not actively fighting against the U.S. Many of our overseas drone strikes have attacked people who were "affiliated" with Al Qaeda but were not actively engaged in terror plots. What if we were mistaken regarding their affiliation? Then we killed someone without due process.

What if someone decided that YOU were part of a terrorist group? Wouldn't you want a chance to clear your name? We need to preserve due process.

I guess you above can criticize him, but next time you are sitting in a restaurant and there seems to be someone that you wonder about and a drone suddenly drops a bomb, well good bye for you - it's just colateral damage.
We have a Consitution, but some of you don't seem to know that it restricts things the government can do. As Americans we have the right to a trial by jury and to be found guilty or innocent. I don't want some government agency/president deciding that I am guilty and then drop a bomb on me and maybe my family, neighbors or friends. Just remember the president that you love & trust will not be the saqme person holding the office in under 4 years. Are you willing to give someone else that you don't agree with the same authority?
Just to let you know I don't love & trust this president.
The camel is starting to come near the tent.

@ one old man

Amendment V to the U.S. Constitution

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ... , nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

As much as I despised Anwar Al Alawki, executing an American citizen regardless of where they live or what they have done, requires that legal charges and a finding of guilt to be brought against them before exercising the ultimate penalty.

Whatever crimes Anwar Al Alawki committed; unless he legally renounced his citizenship, the U.S. government must abide by our laws in regards as to how and when it can execute a U.S. citizen.

Committing a terrorist act or joining a "supposed" terrorist organization does not give the U.S. government the right to execute a U.S. citizen, not without bringing proper charges against them in a court of law.

In my opinion, in the case of "U.S. vs Anwar Al Alawki," the U.S. government committed "murder" when they deemed themselves judge, jury and executioner.

President Obama has bigger fish to fry than Rand Paul at the moment. Let the youngster have his fill of jubilation politics. I haven’t forgotten the lessons of the September 11 attacks on the U.S.