Sen. Rand Paul OP-ED: My filibuster was just the beginning

Great article if you want a glimpse of what was going through Rand Paul's head as he started and continued on with his filibuster and what we could expect from him in the future.



www.washingtonpost.com...

If I had planned to speak for 13 hours when I took the Senate floor Wednesday, I would’ve worn more comfortable shoes. I started my filibuster with the words, “I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak” — and I meant it.

I wanted to sound an alarm bell from coast to coast. I wanted everybody to know that our Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime. As Americans, we have fought long and hard for the Bill of Rights. The idea that no person shall be held without due process, and that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted, is a founding American principle and a basic right.

My official starting time was 11:47 a.m. on Wednesday, March 6, 2013.

I had a large binder of materials to help me get through my points, but although I sometimes read an op-ed or prepared remarks in between my thoughts, most of my filibuster was off the top of my head and straight from my heart. From 1 to 2 p.m., I barely looked at my notes. I wanted to make sure that I touched every point and fully explained why I was demanding more information from the White House.

At about 6:30 p.m., something extraordinary happened. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who has been recovering from a stroke, came to the floor to give me something. I was not allowed to drink anything but water or eat anything but the candy left in our Senate desks. But he brought me an apple and a thermos full of tea — the same sustenance Jimmy Stewart brought to the Senate floor in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” That was a moment I will never forget.

More in the link.

Liberal alternative political commenator of The Young Turks (Cenk) gives his two cents on Rand Paul's 13 hour worldwide trend:

Personally one of my most favorite parts of the 13 hour political saga:

Even Jon Stewart had to grab a piece and applaud Rand:
www.mediaite.com...

edit on 8-3-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by eLPresidente

I wanted everybody to know that our Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime.

A great pity they don't extend these rights to the rest of the world, and the reason why the US is viewed with contempt by many.

Originally posted by creatives

Originally posted by eLPresidente

I wanted everybody to know that our Constitution is precious and that no American should be killed by a drone without first being charged with a crime.

A great pity they don't extend these rights to the rest of the world, and the reason why the US is viewed with contempt by many.

Without a doubt!

If the government wanted to try foreigners, they could, unless it were a battle zone. Then the obvious response would be to get rid of battle zones and stop attempting to wage war on the rest of the world.

Rand Paul sure made his mark with the event, and as his family tradition is to run for president, he'll have to follow this up with quite a few more "events" (maybe not the same kind, but as unique and newsworthy) during the next few years. Then he'll have the name recognition, progressive credibility to go along with his tea party base, and a grip on the "standing up for the little guy" mantle in national politics. Obama would do well to keep an open line to Paul, have him over for lunch, and see what issues they overlap on. An interesting development (and just think what would have happened if he had comfortable shoes!).

Rand Paul, nothing more than a flip-flopping shill.

All the way back on Feb 8th 2013, he wrote the following op-ed:

www.washingtontimes.com...

In which he actually ADVOCATES the use of drones as a means to protect the US Boarder against illegal aliens:

Border Security, including drones, satellite, and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately...

Pathetic, yet not wholly unexpected.

reply to post by negativenihil


Paul didn't say, as far as I know, that he's against drones (and as you point out, has advocated for their use), just that the government should take using them to kill Americans in America off the table. Which they now have done.

Originally posted by negativenihil
Rand Paul, nothing more than a flip-flopping shill.

All the way back on Feb 8th 2013, he wrote the following op-ed:

www.washingtontimes.com...

In which he actually ADVOCATES the use of drones as a means to protect the US Boarder against illegal aliens:

Border Security, including drones, satellite, and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately...

Pathetic, yet not wholly unexpected.

edit on 8-3-2013 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)

ATS should give out awards for members that use "SHILL" the most. Everybody is a shill these days, huh?

Let's break down your accusations.

You claim Rand Paul is a flip-flopper when it comes to his filibuster and drone use, correct?

A) Why did Rand Paul filibuster the Brennan nomination? To ask a simple question of whether it is constitutional or not for the executive branch to launch drone strikes against Americans on US soil without due process.

B) Then you proceed to quote a passage he wrote that advocated drone use for increased border security, claiming that it is somehow a direct contradiction to his filibuster.

Never did he advocate missile striking illegal immigrants, in fact, if you actually go LISTEN to his own words, he does not advocate killing unless it were on the battlefield.

How does that make him a flip flopper?

reply to post by Aleister


Killing Americans on American soil was never on the table. It's BS and you know it - at least the WSJ knows it...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Calm down, Senator," wrote the editors. "Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant."

PS- Thanks Bush administration for providing the framework to label people "enemy combatants"! Geneva Convention? Yeah i've heard of it.

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by Aleister

 

Killing Americans on American soil was never on the table. It's BS and you know it - at least the WSJ knows it...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Calm down, Senator," wrote the editors. "Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant."

PS- Thanks Bush administration for providing the framework to label people "enemy combatants"! Geneva Convention? Yeah i've heard of it.

Oh so the Wall Street Journal now knows more than 13 sitting US senators, including a Democrat?

If it was never on the table then Holder would've addressed it before the nomination, right? RIGHT? And now waited until Rand Paul embarrassed the Obama administration for 13 hours to give a response.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and what the scenarios were leading up to the nomination on Wednesday. You are very blatantly just googling random links that semi-support your claims if they were read by people easily fooled by poor arguments.

And apparently that WSJ Editor doesn't remember the 16 year old American citizen that was the victim of a US drone strike while attending a BBQ gathering. Yes, he was the target.

You know what they say about slippery slopes.

reply to post by eLPresidente


I caught your ninja edit!

No, I'm not making any of this up, these are St Paul II's own words my friend, you know this.

Still - Being only for SOME drone use only a month before this national temper tantrum? He saw a chance to have everyone pay attention to him and he took it, and you're all eating it up.

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by Aleister

 

Killing Americans on American soil was never on the table. It's BS and you know it - at least the WSJ knows it...

Randy Paul's point was that in was never off the table, either. Now it is. All Americans, regardless of "right/left" positioning, should be glad about that.

And remember, drones are being considered and even used by police force jurisdictions throughout the U.S., and although they aren't armed that was just one law or one court ruling away from happening. Now, because of Randy Paul, it will be harder for this to occur.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Oh so the Wall Street Journal now knows more than 13 sitting US senators, including a Democrat?

Sure, why not? As if it's hard to round up 13 senators who dislike the President enough just to stir the pot? Get real.

If it was never on the table then Holder would've addressed it before the nomination.

He shouldn't have NEEDED to even then, This "debate" was a non-issue from the get go.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and what the scenarios were leading up to the nomination on Wednesday. You are very blatantly just googling random links that semi-support your claims if they were read by people easily fooled by poor arguments.

Keep buying your gold bars and bitcoins.

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

I caught your ninja edit!

No, I'm not making any of this up, these are St Paul II's own words my friend, you know this.

Still - Being only for SOME drone use only a month before this national temper tantrum? He saw a chance to have everyone pay attention to him and he took it, and you're all eating it up.

I didn't say you made that passage up. I called you out for claiming it was a flip flopping position when in fact it WAS NOT.

You are not addressing the facts at hand and honestly, I'm not surprised.

Almost immediately aftewards an email was written up and sent to all the people on his mailing list. Asking for money.

US Senate: Filibustering for Cash!

Originally posted by Aleister

Randy Paul's point was that in was never off the table, either. Now it is. All Americans, regardless of "right/left" positioning, should be glad about that.

Don't commit treason or acts of war against the country, and you'll not be labeled an enemy combatant. Thus never worry about being taken out by a drone.

Why is this so hard to understand? Hell - the rabid right of ATS was 100% behind this sort of mentality when Bush was in power and drove home the concept of the enemy combatant...

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Oh so the Wall Street Journal now knows more than 13 sitting US senators, including a Democrat?

Sure, why not? As if it's hard to round up 13 senators who dislike the President enough just to stir the pot? Get real.

If it was never on the table then Holder would've addressed it before the nomination.

He shouldn't have NEEDED to even then, This "debate" was a non-issue from the get go.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and what the scenarios were leading up to the nomination on Wednesday. You are very blatantly just googling random links that semi-support your claims if they were read by people easily fooled by poor arguments.

Keep buying your gold bars and bitcoins.

WSJ is only assuming that it won't happen (as you are assuming right now, or trolling, I honestly can't tell the difference). 13 US Senators are making sure it will never happen. Most of the Republicans that supported him were either jumping on the libertarian bandwagon or just there to help embarrass the White House, I will give you that much. But Rand Paul was not there for 'show and tell'.

If Holder didn't NEED to address the question, why did he do it after Rand Paul embarrassed the Obama administration? In fact, the White House sent it to ALL MEDIA OUTLETS and Rand Paul had to hear about it in an interview. Let's face the facts, you got completely owned on this one, there is no way for you to wiggle your way out of it.

Of course you aren't going to address the US drone strike on a 16 year old American citizen attending a BBQ. It calls out and opposes everything that you've been claiming up until this point. No way for you to wiggle out of this one either.

Do your homework.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I called you out for claiming it was a flip flopping position when in fact it WAS NOT.

The entire concept of using drones on Americans was from the get-go a straw man. This whole stunt was just that... a stunt for attention.

You've bought into it, hook line and sinker. Congrats

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I called you out for claiming it was a flip flopping position when in fact it WAS NOT.

The entire concept of using drones on Americans was from the get-go a straw man. This whole stunt was just that... a stunt for attention.

You've bought into it, hook line and sinker. Congrats

You still won't address your false accusations. Instead, you continue to play dumb and constantly change the subject around.

I am just glad you gave me several opportunities to expose you for the fraud that you are.

And you want to talk about 'straw man' ?????

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Of course you aren't going to address the US drone strike on a 16 year old American citizen attending a BBQ.

Of course? Son. we're just getting started. Don't get cocky

What exactly WAS a 16 year old doing in an active war zone anyway? Hanging out with al-Qaeda?

Look, it sucks, but the lesson here - again - don't commit acts of war or treason against the US. Don't give aid to the enemy. Plain and simple. Don't go hanging out with terrorists in an active war zone... and you wont get caught u in a drone strike.

Shall we ask our military to start pre-screening alQaeda camps before striking? Give 'em a little heads up?

Originally posted by eLPresidente

You still won't address your false accusations. Instead, you continue to play dumb and constantly change the subject around.

I'm not playing dumb - Paul has played dumb on this non-issue, and you've bought into it. He wanted to throw a tantrum, and knew no one from his extended base would question him. Bravo, you fell for it

I am just glad you gave me several opportunities to expose you for the fraud that you are.

You are king of your mother's basement - no one can take that away from you.