Slashdot Mirror


Rand Paul Launches a Filibuster Against Drone Strikes On US Soil

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that at about 11:45 am today, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul took the floor of the Senate to launch one of the chamber's rarest spectacles: a genuine filibuster. Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. He called Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to rule out drone strikes to kill an American on U.S. soil 'more than frightening,' adding, 'When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It's an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, "No." The president's response? He hasn't killed anyone yet. We're supposed to be comforted by that.' Any senator can opt to hold the floor to speak on any matter, but the practice of speaking for hours on end is rare, especially in the modern-day Senate, where the chamber's rules are used more often to block legislation or to hold show votes on trivial matters. Paul has since been joined in his symbolic effort by Republicans Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). He has also gotten some bipartisan support from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.). Paul suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of people who might have been considered enemies of the state. 'Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'"

4 of 693 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The enemy of my enemy by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where are all these groups and people now who were protesting against the war.

    In jail

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  2. Re:The enemy of my enemy by PraiseBob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think that explains it pretty well. A few weeks before the Iraq war started, the world saw the largest coordinated protest in history across hundreds of cities, with millions upon millions of people calling for peace. The end result: Nothing. The largest action of its kind in human history, and it did absolutely nothing.

    Fast forward to protests held during Obama's tenure, the Occupy Wall Street movement. This time it wasn't a single day, but weeks, and months, of protest camps across hundreds of cities. The end result: ? How many bankers have been arrested? How many laws have changed? What impact has it had aside from a media sideshow?

    And now the GP wonders, why aren't people protesting more? Why aren't people making a big protest against the president's claim to kill political dissidents? It's ridiculous to claim that partisan politics are what stand in the way. It didn't prevent OWS from happening did it?

    Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change? Thats why people aren't protesting now.

  3. Re:The enemy of my enemy by dryeo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find the key phrase to be killing people without due process. Whether American or not, it is wrong to randomly kill people for their political beliefs.
    Could be worse, here in Canada the right wing is going to remove citizenship from terrorists to get around that problem. Of course the definition of terrorist seems to constantly grow.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  4. It's the new normal by dbIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's been going on for quite a few years now. I don't know why anybody can seriously expect bad behaviour abroad to stay abroad. A good example is a bunch of French torturers who came home from Algeria, didn't like the French President and then decided that since they were used to working outside the rules they may as well do the same at home and try to kill their head of state.