
Rand Paul filibustering over drones - stfu
http://washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-filibustering-over-drones-i-will-not-let-obama-shred-the-constitution/article/2523425
======
DanielBMarkham
So let me see if I understand this.

One guy is filibustering the CIA nominee based on an incomplete and vague set
of questions and answers -- which one side says is nothing new and the other
side says changes the game. The filibuster has no chance of succeeding, and
all the little political wonks are coming out of the woodwork and taking sides
based on the party of the senator involved.

More dysfunctional Washington? A man standing up for his morals? A pointless
charade? Just bluster and theater in preparation for the next presidential
race?

I don't care. Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of
governments watching over their own citizens. For the next few hours, I could
care less which party Rand Paul is from. I stand with him. We can all tear him
down tomorrow. There's plenty of time for that later.

~~~
mpyne
> Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of governments
> watching over their own citizens.

What I don't understand, is why when John McClane was shot at by an F-22
Raptor in Live Free or Die Hard, why there wasn't a big outcry at that time.
There were no complaints, no HN threads that I remember, and certainly no
filibusters in Congress.

None of the reviews talked about some "dystopian future America", they said
that shit blew up and it was otherwise an action movie.

Why is it OK for the American military to use an F-22 Raptor on one of their
own citizens but drones are no good?

Mind, I understand completely why people are concerned about why the military
could or could not be employed domestically; I just don't understand why
people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters, rocket
launchers, bazookas, motorized anti-aircraft weaponry, bum-standard rifles and
carbines, etc.

~~~
AJ007
You just compared the reaction of viewers of a theatrical event in a fictional
action movie to reality.

~~~
csallen
Analogies generally compare specific similarities in two otherwise unlike
things.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Analogy>

~~~
jfoutz
First, it was an F-35.

Second, the faked CGI jet had a pilot.

Third, since we're going to admit fairy stories as evidence, Once upon a time
csallen was wrong. the end.

The second point really drives home the fallacy, but accepting tall tales as
evidence is super dangerous. you should never do that. ever.

Finally, argument from analogy is always a very weak. There is always a more
direct argument to be made. If analogy is the best argument you can muster,
you need to reevaluate your position.

~~~
pc86
Let's completely ignore the ridiculous Die Hard reference for a second.

I don't know how I feel about drones, but it seems a large part of the
opposition is the _unmanned_ part. I have two problems with this argument:

(1) They're not unmanned. Somebody is actively controlling them.

(2) Why does a pilot make a difference? Pilot's don't get a choice in their
targets. This isn't a movie where pilots can decline to fire on a target.
They'd certainly get a court martial, their career would be ruined, their
_life_ would be ruined with a dishonorable discharge, and depending on the
circumstances they very well could go to prison.

So, I guess the reason I feel somewhat indifferent to drones is that I don't
really get the main point of opposition. What makes a drone so much different
than planes?

~~~
notdrunkatall
Piloted aircraft and pilots are expensive. Drones have no pilots, and are thus
much less expensive. It is not economically feasible to monitor vast swaths of
land with vast numbers of piloted airplanes. It is economically feasible to
monitor vast swaths of land with vast numbers of drones.

~~~
pc86
But that's not an argument against drones, that's an argument against large-
scale government surveillance.

Ignoring whether or not you think government surveillance is a positive,
negative, or neutral, the fact that a piece of technology makes it easier
doesn't mean that technology is bad.

Edit: I'm not an expert in either field, but I imagine a similar argument
could be made against satellites. That doesn't mean we should have a
filibuster against GPS and Sirius.

------
VengefulCynic
If the filibuster prompts further public discourse and a closer look at the
use of lethal force without due process of law, it's positive. The real
question will be if all of the other Senators vote for cloture just to get the
issue swept back under the carpet.

Impediments on the power of government aren't particularly popular to those
who wield the power of government, regardless of the branch they occupy.

~~~
stevesearer
Yeah, I've been wondering if it will amount to anything as well. My gut tells
me that it won't.

That said, I've had it running for around and hour and have found it
interesting for no other reason than understanding how filibusters actually
work. From what I can tell, he has just been spending time reading articles
critical of drone strikes or reading other documents while providing
commentary on them as he goes.

He's even been taking time to eat a snack which provides comedic pauses in the
listening experiences.

Rand also gets small breaks from others who come forward to ask questions -
most of which seem to be staged to help him cover additional points, reiterate
his already made points, or just generally use up more clock.

Based on the view behind him, it appears that all other senators need not be
present while he speaks. Is that true and has this always been the case? I'd
imagine that the tactic might be more compelling and useful if everyone had to
sit there and listen.

~~~
lmkg
The important thing to understanding filibusters is that they're a dirty,
dirty hack. They were never really intended to be part of the legislative
process, they're just some enterprising senators noticing and exploiting some
loopholes in the senate's debate rules.

While the House puts some limits on debates, to move things along, the Senate
is a more deliberative body (by design) and therefore doesn't vote on an issue
until it has been completely debated. There is no strict definition of
"completely debated" beyond "someone still has something to say." As any half-
awake hacker no doubt will notice, this means that you can prevent a law from
getting voted on, and therefore passing, by simply not ending the debate. This
is what a filibuster is.

There are technically some restrictions around debate, and the band-aid fix
that a supermajority vote can stop debate and bring a vote, but that's about
the only thing stopping it in practice.

The main technical restriction is that, if the Senate doesn't have anything
else to do, any one Senator only gets one monologue. They can't stop one day,
and then filibuster again the next day. This rule can be stretched, but not
broken. Hence, the content of most filibusters tend to be long space-fillers,
which is what you're seeing. There's also a rule that the debate must be 'on
topic,' but that's too vaguely defined to be worth anything. Famously, one
Senator said something to the effect of "this law is not in the interests of
my constituents, who are as follows:" and then proceed to literally read the
phone book for a few hours.

~~~
hkmurakami
I seemed to recall someone reading a cookbook as part of his filibuster, but a
phonebook seems 10x more likely. Thanks for the info!

~~~
wam
That was on The West Wing.

~~~
anigbrowl
Based on Sen. Al D'Amato's 1986 23.5 hour filibuster of a military bill.
Another of his filibusters in 1992 involved him singing 'South of the Border.'
EDIT: typos.

~~~
wam
That is fantastic.

------
tptacek
Rand Paul asked a stupid question†† of Eric Holder, one of the top lawyers in
the USG, and received a predictably stupid answer. That question, distilled:
"is there any conceivable situation in which drones could be used to attack US
citizens on US soil'. How could the answer to that question be anything but
yes? All you have to do is imagine a far-fetched scenario in which an al Qaeda
terrorist who happens to be a US citizen is going to kill hundreds of
Americans, imminently, but for an intervention that will only be effective via
drone strike.

A simpler way to frame this that hundreds of people have now pointed out,
which has the helpful property of extracting the scary alien new "drones"†
from the equation: the authority Holder is claiming for the administration is
the same as the one that would allow them to down a jetliner hurtling towards
the Sears Tower: an intervention only available to the military.

There were good questions available to Rand Paul before he decided to
prematurely declare victory over common sense. Two I can come up with:

* Does the administration claim the right to use military resources to attack US citizens on US soil if compelling evidence exists that they are al Qaeda terrorist when no specific evidence exists that such a person plans to imminently attack the US? Can the US use an airstrike against an al Qaeda terrorist who is a US citizen simply to keep them from "getting away"?

* Does the administration claim the right to use airstrikes against al Qaeda terrorists of any nationality when a reasonable person could infer a likelihood that such a strike would cause harm to Americans in the vicinity of the strike?

There are more good questions, I'm sure. "Could there ever be a case when..."
is literally the "ticking time bomb" question; the dumbest of all questions.

† _Scared kids in combat boots with M16s have done far more damage to innocent
lives, both at home and abroad, than drones will ever do; drones are often a
way of affecting concern for the lives of people 'like us' while ignoring the
safety of civilians and servicemembers on the ground._

†† _"What stupid question?" This
one:<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335285> _

~~~
signalsignal
What do you mean by "Scared kids"? These soldiers we send into combat are
adults and trained professionals. If anything they should be better able to
assess a situation in combat with boots on the ground, not flying above the
area thousands of meters away firing missiles.

Additionally, there is nothing stupid about what Rand Paul is doing. The
American government is based on a system of checks and balances. Rand Paul is
doing the job he is paid to do.

~~~
dctoedt
> _What do you mean by "Scared kids"? These soldiers we send into combat are
> adults and trained professionals. If anything they should be better able to
> assess a situation in combat with boots on the ground, not flying above the
> area thousands of meters away firing missiles._

I believe we have some combat veterans among the HN crowd; you might ask them
whether you've got a realistic view of the stress of a combat situation.

~~~
tptacek
Can I just say real quick that when I said "scared kids" the thing in my head
was Kent State? I have a generally high opinion of people who serve in the
military. I couldn't have done it. I don't think they're all dumb kids.

~~~
dctoedt
For clarity, I wasn't responding to you, Thomas. The people I've known who
have been in combat (including my dad) have uniformly said that _of course_
they were scared, but they did their jobs anyway as best they could. And yes,
most of them are basically kids.

------
olympus
Filibustering is great and all, but how about introducing some legislation
clarifying the issue that US citizens are off limits to drones? It would be
too easy for Holder or Obama to say, "okay, we won't do it" and then go back
on their word. Having the law on the books makes it a lot tougher for Obama
and any future presidents to kill citizens without affording them their full
right to trial.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Don't we have something more powerful than a law on the books now? The 5th
Amendment is pretty clear on the subject: you must follow due process.

I honestly don't see how a strike on US soil against a US citizen could be
seen as constitutional. But then, there have been a _lot_ of things over the
past 15 years that I've felt the same way about.

~~~
jff
The standard process seems to be to violate the Constitution, then continue
doing it until the Supreme Court tells you you've been very naughty.

~~~
retrogradeorbit
And then claim that "due process" doesn't mean a court and actually means a
bunch of securocrats sitting in a room with a list of names going kill? or not
kill?

------
harrylove
Live right now on C-SPAN2: <http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/>

~~~
vxNsr
It's most interesting to hear what he's talking about and how he can just keep
talking and talking and talking. He'll repeat himself and then say it again in
a third way, it's great.

~~~
retrogradeorbit
I like the other senators helping him out by 'asking him to answer questions
whithout relinquishing the floor'.

Zerohedge coverage here with some quotes:
[http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/rand-pauls-
filibliz...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/rand-pauls-filiblizzard-
enters-its-sixth-hour)

------
ameister14
I don't really understand the argument against what Rand Paul is talking
about. Even if you think he's being ridiculous, what's the problem with
declaring due process applies to drone strikes on American soil?

Personally, I think this is exactly what I want from my political
representatives.

------
krschultz
The letter Eric Holder sent that caused this.

<http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanPaul.pdf>

~~~
anigbrowl
That's a letter from John Brennan, nominee for head of the CIA. This is the
letter from Eric Holder:
[http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse...](http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf)

In my view it's entirely reasonable, and Rand Paul is full of shit. His
filibuster is nothing other than pandering to a right-wing fringe that
considers Obama to be the reincarnation of Josef Stalin.

~~~
shill
Would you say the same thing if there was a Republican in the White House
touting the power to execute you without a trial?

~~~
anigbrowl
False premise. That said, if I were engaged in some sort of military-style
assault upon the US then _of course_ I would expect to encounter armed
opposition. Is it your view that when a country is attacked the executive is
supposed to sit on its hands?

Call me cold-heart, but I think George W. Bush would have been better off
ordering fighter jets into the air back in 2001 instead of listening to a
story about a pet goat. (See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat#George_W._Bush:_9....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat#George_W._Bush:_9.2F11)
for context).

EDIT: I forgot to add that the US has been employing drones since at least
2002. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan> and
<http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1900248,00.html> among other
sources.

I thought it was wholly reasonable then and I think it's wholly reasonable
now.

~~~
gnosis
It would be easier to buy the "we'll only use this new, extraordinary power to
combat terrorists (or pedophiles, or drug dealers, or whatever the boogeyman
of the day is)" excuse if it hadn't turned out to be a lie time, and time
again.

Over and over, the government grabs more power for itself, then uses and
abuses that power in whatever way it wishes.

What makes this particular case even more eggregious is that there's
absolutely no oversight whatsoever. Obama (or whoever we're unlucky enough to
be saddled with after him) can just designate anyone he wants a "terrorist",
without anyone being able to question his judgement or even ask for
justifications. It's assassination power on a whim.

How much more absolute power are you going to be willing to grant the
government for the sake of security theater?

~~~
tptacek
What is the oversight that was used when the administration decided to bomb
Dresden, or to firebomb Tokyo? How does it differ from the oversight employed
against "organizations involved in the attacks on 9/11"?

How many more innocent people were killed in those attacks than will ever be
killed by drones? Have you ever watched "Fog Of War"? Tokyo was made of wood
and paper.

~~~
mpyne
More Japanese died in Tokyo from one night of firebombing attacks in March
1945 than died in either Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki.

It sadly really goes to show how right Stalin was when he made his jest about
tragedies and statistics.

------
defilade
It's a complete and utter fallacy to say that the government doesn't have the
authority to kill people without due process. The police and Federal law
enforcement do it all the time. It's called justifiable homicide.

~~~
erichocean
_It's called justifiable homicide._

And it requires an actual incident, with some kind of "eminent harm".

That's a lot different than what Rand Paul is talking about, which is
targeting someone who is just going about their day that the government would
prefer to dispatch without going to trial.

(If you object to the "just going about their day" part, that's _exactly_ how
we do drone strikes outside the US.)

------
mkhattab
One of the problems I see with this is that a Republican is leading the charge
on this rather than a Democrat. And because Rand Paul says a lot of stupid
things, as do most Republicans, I think many people will dismiss this as
partisan politics (which it probably is).

I think we need another president as bad or worse as Bush again (perhaps
Romney or Palin) to put enough pressure on citizens to become actively engaged
again and take to the streets.

~~~
noarchy
>I think we need another president as bad or worse as Bush again (perhaps
Romney or Palin) to put enough pressure on citizens to become actively engaged
again and take to the streets.

You're all but saying that you don't think that people will take to the
streets when a Democratic president is in power. I'd submit that Obama has
been worse than Bush in a number of areas. In particular, he extended every
major Bush-era power-grab, ranging from the Patriot act, to warrantless
wiretapping. And then he piled more on top of that.

It might be more accurate to condemn _both_ major US parties as loving power
and war. If people won't condemn both, and prefer instead to remain
tribalistic in their allegiance to one of the parties, then there's really not
much hope for any change (not that I was ever optimistic about that).

------
SCAQTony
Did anybody write the President after they heard about Holder's outrageous
comments? If not please do.

------
tokipin
if it wasn't drones it would've been something else. everything in the senate
is filibustered by default, quite literally. there isn't anything special
about this case except the drone issue itself

~~~
ericcumbee
No this is different there are two different types of Filibuster. a Filibuster
lite which is more or less a procedural trick. and then the full blown Mr.
Smith Goes to washington keep talking until you drop filibuster. this is the
full blown filibuster and it's actually quite rare.

------
mandytolliver
Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Jason Chaffetz. Is some sanity creeping into our
political system?

------
Tangaroa
Did everyone here skip US History in high school and college? One of the main
reasons for creating the Constitution was that the Articles of Confederation
made it too difficult for the government to use military force against US
citizens on US soil, e.g. Shays's Rebellion. The Constitution allows Congress
to raise and use an army -- such as through an Authorization for the Use of
Military Force -- and to destroy "Insurrections", i.e. US citizens on US soil.
And when the President swears to defend the Constitution against "all enemies,
foreign and domestic", what did you think "and domestic" means?

And no, you don't have a Fifth Amendment to not be shot at when you join the
enemy during a war; and no, being a citizen does not give you rights, and the
Constitution does not grant you rights. The Constitution grants the government
powers and limits those powers. All people inherently have rights by virtue of
being born. Read Blackstone's Commentaries; the Founding Fathers did. That was
the standard law textbook in the colonies at the time of the Revolution.

Remember that this whole drone nontroversy arises from the killing of al-
Qaeda's leader Anwar Awlaki and a few of his followers who all happen to have
been US citizens and who had invaded Yemen and carved out their own country
there. The drone question is not about hypothetical harm done to innocent
Americans, it's about whether the army may use military force on al-Qaeda when
there is a Congressional law explicitly directing that the army do so. Why is
this even a question?

~~~
logn
Yeah, did ya get the memo?
[http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16870230-4-key-
qu...](http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16870230-4-key-questions-
about-controversial-justice-department-drone-memo?lite)

This isn't about true war and combatant enemies. This is about worst-case-
scenario 1984 happening soon by having a perpetual war with a nebulous enemy.
Whether you think this is a legitimate worry or not is irrelevant. The
President is claiming broad, never before used power. Maybe he can be trusted
with this, but no president ever has, and there will be future ones. (He's
challenging principles from the Magna Carta
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta> which was the basis for various
rights of due process in the Constitution)

Also, we drone struck Anwar Awlaki's 16-year-old son from Colorado while he
was overseas looking for his father (whom was dead due to another drone
strike). When asked about it, the administration (Robert Gibbs) commented, "I
would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father". So we go
after your family if you've ever been against the US and haven't since
publicly renounced that stance. That's cool with you? If it is, keep in mind
this is all hypothetical anyhow since nobody's getting a trial.

------
BlindRubyCoder
Good for him. Maybe more of the general public will actually start talking
about it. Right now I think most of the populace is blissfully unaware of the
program.

