The Filibuster’s Top 10 Winners and Losers

[ProSense]

The Filibuster’s Top 10 Winners and Losers

WINNERS

1) Civil liberties: <...>

2) Libertarianism: <...>

3) Twitter: <...>

4) Ted Cruz: <...>

5) the GOP: <...>

6) Rush Limbaugh: <...>

7) the Fifth Amendment: <...>

8) Glenn Greenwald: <...>

9) America’s image: <...>

10) Bipartisanship: <...>


LOSERS

1) Interventionists: <...>

2) John McCain: <...>

3) Lindsey Graham: <...>

4) Drones: <...>

5) Lincoln: <...>

6) the absentee Democrats: <...>

7) Executive power: <...>

8) Marco Rubio: <...>

9) Eric Holder: <...>

10) President Obama: <...>

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-filibuster%E2%80%99s-top-10-winners-and-losers/

StandwithRand. Mission Accomplished!

Now, what did Paul's publicity stunt do to change the actual drone policy? The administration answered a strawman question, and as Eugene Robinson put it:

<...>

Paul focused narrowly on the simple question of whether “the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

<...>

Hours after Paul finished his filibuster, Holder finally closed that door. “It has come to my attention,” he wrote Paul, “that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

So that’s settled. But the overwhelming majority of drone attacks target foreign nationals in foreign countries, and this is where the moral calculus gets harder.

<...>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-rand-paul-makes-the-right-call-with-filibuster/2013/03/07/b66732fc-876a-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html

Paul's focus was narrow by design. People got roped into this nonsense, and now "that’s settled."

Because of Paul's high-profile theatrics, that is what the majority of Americans now believe. The question of whether or not the President approves of targeting and killing Americans is now moot.

His filibuster served absolutely no purpose in terms of the actual drone policy, and no doubt Paul's latest bullshit proposal will garner support from across the spectrum.

GOP Senators Introduce Pointless Drone Bill

By Adam Serwer

Not wanting to take Attorney General Eric Holder's word for it that the US government won't be sending deadly flying robots to kill its own citizens on American soil, Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced a bill that would "prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat."

The bill all but disarms the US government, leaving it with few options for lethal force against citizens other than guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force.

Unless you're not in the United States, or you're an "imminent threat." In that case, the government can drone away.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/gop-senators-introduce-bill-banning-domestic-drone-assassinations

Use of drones to kill Americans not OK "if they do not represent an imminent threat."

Killing Americans who don't pose an "imminent threat" OK if the weapons of choice are "guns, tanks, helicopters, snipers, paramilitary squads, bombs, tasers and blunt force."

Use of drones to kill anyone outside the United States OK.

Unfortunately, people are now focused on Paul and his proposal. After all the hype they will believe it's the solution.

Should the Senate pass the Cruz, Paul drone bill?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022480661

Rand Paul's PR Sham
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022476740

[MannyGoldstein]

1. But since the President, alone, decides who is an imminent threat

and will not submit to judicial review, Holder's pledge is meaningless.

Paul is an extraordinarily unhelpful human being. But the debate over extrajudicial execution is a good one to have.

[ProSense]

2. "Paul is an extraordinarily unhelpful human being."

Are you realizing now how his bill opens Pandora's Box?

"But since the President, alone, decides who is an imminent threat"

Really? Has someone changed the President's Constitutional authority?

Breaking: Attorney General - Obama Can't Order Drone Attack On Americans On US Soil

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" Holder wrote. "The answer to that question is no."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022473840

[ProSense]

3. Kick! n/t