# Actual Fillibuster **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 7, 2013, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270 "2013-03-07T07:08:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/21 "2013-03-07T19:27:18Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Of course, he’s a conservative, so I suppose most people here can’t bring themselves to say anything good about Sen. Paul, even when he does something that they claim to want. What I claim to want is for Senate rules to be brought in line with House rules – no “unlimited debate,” no filibusters. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/22 "2013-03-07T20:38:32Z")
And what I claim to **really** want is the Senate abolished, but that’s another discussion. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/23 "2013-03-07T21:25:08Z")
The Senators from the Big Empty are united in opposition. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/24 "2013-03-07T21:35:09Z")
So the lesson to dissidents is stay in the US. Don’t flee the country you profess hatred for or you’ll be al-awlaki’ed without any oversight. Keep your children here too. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/25 "2013-03-07T21:38:11Z")
I generally have nothing good to say about Rand Paul, but kudos to him for going through with a good old fashion filibuster. Thirteen hours and no bathroom break – that’s something right there. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/26 "2013-03-07T22:14:51Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > **Actual Fillibuster** . . . is spelled with just one “l,” actually. ---
**Author:** ![Enemy\_Country](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/96bed5/32.png) [@Enemy\_Country](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enemy_Country)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/27 "2013-03-07T22:28:29Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > With all the moaning that some people here have done about the new-style “fillibuster,” I’m astounded that nobody has bothered to mention Sen. Rand Paul and his old-school fillibuster. It’s over now, but it lasted several hours. > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/06/rand-paul-begins-talking-filibuster-against-john-brennan/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/06/rand-paul-begins-talking-filibuster-against-john-brennan/) > > [Rand Paul Leads Filibuster of Brennan Nomination - The New York Times](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination/) > > [Sen. Rand Paul ends marathon filibuster of John Brennan](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-rand-paul-john-brennan-filibuster-20130307,0,6264955.story) > > Of course, he’s a conservative, so I suppose most people here can’t bring themselves to say anything good about Sen. Paul, even when he does something that they claim to want. I think many of the Presidents supporters, including myself see the problem with doing away with due process in any form. What if Palin got in? I dont want someone like that having the power to kill at will. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/28 "2013-03-07T22:44:20Z")
And this just in! Rand Paul triumphs, crushed Justice Dept wimpers in surrender! [http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/07/1687721/holder-paul-drones/](http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/07/1687721/holder-paul-drones/) > [@](#): > > Attorney General Eric Holder has responded to questions on the President’s authority to use drone strikes on U.S. soil in response to concerns about an overreach against civil liberties. > White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday announced that Holder had written to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to clarify the administration’s stance on the use of armed drones to kill U.S. citizens on American soil. In the letter, Holder acceded to Paul’s request that he place in writing of what he told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a meeting before the panel on Wednesday, that a drone strike against an American citizen who is not an imminent threat would be unconstitutional: > > CARNEY: Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer is no. The answer to that question is no… Sen Pauls response reflects the generous good nature for which he is so widely beloved. > [@](#): > > …Fox News’ Megyn Kelly read Holder’s letter to Sen. Paul on-air, as the Senator had yet to receive it. “Hooray,” Paul responded. “For 13 hours yesterday we asked him that question and so there is a result and a victory under duress, and under public humiliation, the White House will respond and do the right thing.”… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/29 "2013-03-07T23:38:39Z")
Late update: rumors that Eric Holder will commit _seppuku_ in the Rose Garden are unfounded. Its winter, and the Rose Garden is closed. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/30 "2013-03-07T23:40:38Z")
The legalese wording “not engaged in combat” is easily handwaved away. The executive branch is still saying they can use the tactic without proving any charge to anybody. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/31 "2013-03-08T00:28:48Z")
In the most unlikely event that an American citizen/terrorist is in the country and is about to attack, and the only way to stop him is to use a drone attack (assuming Chuck Norris is unavailable) then Obama by God _better_ disregard the Constitution! He can then throw himself on the mercy of the House. Republicans have been very understanding and forgiving as regard Executive overreach. At least, until recently. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/32 "2013-03-08T00:44:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > In the most unlikely event that an American citizen/terrorist is in the country and is about to attack, and the only way to stop him is to use a drone attack (assuming Chuck Norris is unavailable) then Obama by God _better_ disregard the Constitution! > > He can then throw himself on the mercy of the House. Republicans have been very understanding and forgiving as regard Executive overreach. At least, until recently. Except that wasn’t the question. The question is whether the targeting of suspects (and those foolish enough to be around them) by military drones would be legal/allowed on US soil. NOT whether we can shoot at someone about to attack - whether we can blow up a house and all in it because they are suspected terrorists. You know - all of those issues others have brought up about the War on Terror in other places. It would be nice if more on the Left would have supported the questioning, but lets face it - partisanship is partisanship. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/33 "2013-03-08T02:01:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > In the most unlikely event that an American citizen/terrorist is in the country and is about to attack, and the only way to stop him is to use a drone attack (assuming Chuck Norris is unavailable) then Obama by God _better_ disregard the Constitution! [cue the final scene of Stephen King’s/Richard Bachman’s _The Running Man]_ [no, no, the **book]** ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/34 "2013-03-08T03:12:28Z")
Now, this particular line of reasoning offered by Sen. Apall… > **[Rand Paul Asked If The US Was Going To 'Drop A Drone Hellfire Missile On Jane...](https://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-filibuster-jane-fonda-drones-quotes-obama-john-brennan-2013-3)** > [@](#): > > …During his epic filibuster today, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul expressed concern about the lack of clear definition defining who the U.S. could target in drone strikes against American citizens. > > One of the colorful examples he used to illustrate his worries was actress Jane Fonda, who famously protested against the Vietnam War. > > “Is objecting to your government or objecting to the policies of your government sympathizing with the enemy?” Paul asked. > > “Some openly were sympathetic. No one will ever forget Jane Fonda swiveling around in North Vietnamese armored guns, and it was despicable. And it’s one thing if you’re going to try her for treason, but are you just going to drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” > > Paul also suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of Americans who could have been considered enemy sympathizers… Speaking as someone who has been bitching loyally for…a long time…perhaps I am meant to be reassured that Sen Paul has my back. Swell. Groovy. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/35 "2013-03-08T05:33:07Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Except that wasn’t the question. The question is whether the targeting of suspects (and those foolish enough to be around them) by military drones would be legal/allowed on US soil. NOT whether we can shoot at someone about to attack - whether we can blow up a house and all in it because they are suspected terrorists. > > You know - all of those issues others have brought up about the War on Terror in other places. > > It would be nice if more on the Left would have supported the questioning, but lets face it - partisanship is partisanship. The question was asked and answered long before Rand Paul came on the scene. You do not have the energy of more on the Left because many on the Left see this for what it is. Could maybe you tell me why drone strikes are so much more worrisome than stuffing graham crackers down somebody’s throat until they choke to death, or, maybe, shooting them with a cheap bullet? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/36 "2013-03-08T06:51:41Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > The question was asked and answered long before Rand Paul came on the scene. You do not have the energy of more on the Left because many on the Left see this for what it is. Could maybe you tell me why drone strikes are so much more worrisome than stuffing graham crackers down somebody’s throat until they choke to death, or, maybe, shooting them with a cheap bullet? Except that it has not been answered on this subject, Holder was waffling, and at times there are abuses of police power that must be kept in check. It is delightful that a darling of the fringe Right is on this subject now, usually we have to rely on the Left to keep an eye out for us. Drone strikes are more worrisome due to their tendency to pick a bit of collateral damage. They are also currently used to kill suspects, not just convicted criminals. The use of drones in the US to kill would be stating that we have decided that it is OK to kill US citizens suspected of a crime within our borders. Now, we have already stated that we are willing to kill suspects outside of our borders, but the good senator wanted to know if we were going to bring that war home with us. We would hope that the Posse Commitus stuff would keep the government in check (at least on a legal basis), but sometimes someone needs to ask the question - and this administration has not, sadly, been a font of openness on some of the ways that they conduct business. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/37 "2013-03-08T08:43:05Z")
I must say, its heartening to see how important transparency has become since Obama was elected. Wasn’t that long ago the idea was derided by very serious people. A President in war time can’t conduct policy with Congress looking over his shoulder all the time. Issues of security, for instance. We have to assume that the President has information we don’t have, and maybe shouldn’t have. Commander in Chief, and all that. Obama changed all that. Now a President must declare his policy in advance of making a decision he hasn’t the slightest intention of making. Perhaps the reason they didn’t leap to answer the question is because it was beneath them to dignify such a stupid question with an answer. If the suspect is on US soil, you send the cops. Duh. Why would anyone think otherwise? And as far as killing enemy combatants who happen to be citizens on American soil, I recall there is considerable precedent. Some of you erroneously refer to it as “the Civil War”. Granted, an attack by a lethal model airplane seems a bit impersonal, but the effect is very much the same. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/38 "2013-03-08T09:39:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Perhaps the reason they didn’t leap to answer the question is because it was beneath them to dignify such a stupid question with an answer. If the suspect is on US soil, you send the cops. Duh. Why would anyone think otherwise? This. The subject of using drones to target people on US soil is hypothetical at best, because there’s no part of the country in anywhere near the kind of civil disarray that parts of Yemen/Pakistan/etc. are such that civil enforcement of the law is impossible. The only time using drones on US soil would _ever_ be an option would be some sort of civil insurrection/Mad Max scenario where things are completely falling to shit - in which case, the infrastructure to arrest someone and give them a fair trial probably won’t even exist. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/39 "2013-03-08T15:59:08Z")
It really was a simple point that Paul was making, which I can’t believe anyone on here would actually disagree with. This exchange between Ted Cruz and Holder illustrates it perfectly. [Ted Cruz and Eric Holder discuss Drones](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-e0OiCuBYI) Is it constitutional to use a drone to strike a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who is not posing an imminent threat? Answering that it is not the Obama Administration’s policy to use drone strikes in that manner is not an appropriate response. It leaves open the possibility of a future administration changing that policy. Using drones is clearly an increasing part of our national defense. Rand never questioned the idea of using a drone to strike someone posing an imminent threat. In fact he said several times during the filibuster that he is not talking about the 9-11 type scenario or even the armed individual with a loaded gun pointing it at someone type of scenario. We use drones to strike suspected terrorists in foreign countries that are not engaging in any imminent threat type action and are killed just because they are a target. Paul wanted it on record from the executive branch that using drones in this manner would not be constitutional on U.S. soil on U.S. citizens that are not posing an imminent threat. Separately he said the overall use of drones in other situations from the very specific one that was the subject of the filibuster should be something that further debate and discussion be undertaken. Dick Durbin seemed to agree with this. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270/40 "2013-03-08T16:01:47Z")
Oh well - I guess we will wait for the next Republican President before the Left will rediscover its concerns, and the Right will go back to wanting the Presidency to be all powerful. Today’s LA Times (those Right Wing Nutbars) has their take on the filibuster, and their concerns about the mythical risk: > **[Terrorism and the war at home](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-xpm-2013-mar-08-la-ed-paul-filibuster-drones-20130308-story.html)** > > Terrorism and the war at home > [@](#): > > Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. tried to dispel concerns in letters to Paul on Monday and on Thursday, when he flatly declared that the president does not have the authority to use a drone to kill a citizen “not engaged in combat” here in the United States. But just as the Obama administration has stretched the meaning of “imminent” to cover situations in which there’s no evidence of a looming attack, so could future attorneys general interpret “combat” as something other than actively trying to kill Americans. > > Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, declared that Paul’s nightmare scenario of a citizen being assassinated in a cafe “will never happen in the United States of America.” That’s because, in Feinstein’s mind, there’s a clear distinction between enemy combatants overseas who easily elude capture and plotters in the United States who can be tracked and arrested. But the last two administrations have blurred the line separating crimes from acts of war. And even if you trust Obama’s judgment, do you want to grant the same discretion to his successors, whoever they might be? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/actual-fillibuster/652270.md?page=3)