Sen. Rand Paul Ends Filibuster On Brennan Nomination
Source: NPR
by The Associated Press
March 07, 201312:51 AM
Senator Rand Paul has ended his filibuster blocking Senate confirmation of the president's CIA nominee. The filibuster lasted 12 hours and 54 minutes.
Paul was trying to delay the nomination of John Brennan for CIA chief.
Brennan's nomination was approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee with a vote of 12 to 3 on Tuesday.
Read more: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/07/173677979/sen-rand-paul-ends-filibuster-on-brennan-nomination
Yay, fillibaggedon is finally over.
Justitia
(9,316 posts)even if they are cut from the same cloth
http://www.businessinsider.com/longest-filibuster-in-history-strom-thurmond-rand-paul-2013-3
Old Strom's hate-a-thon kept him going for over a day
hate-a-thon!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)He went to the floor armed with cough drops and malted milk tablets.
He allowed others to make short remarks and ask questions during his time, allowing him to sneak off to the cloakroom to gobble a sandwich.
He had his aide wait in the cloakroom with a pail when he was about to step down from the dais in case of an emergency evacuation.
Guess the Starve the Beast crowd no longer employs enough people to take care of such details. Or Rand was able to hold it longer than Strom...
Was it worth it?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Put that tidbit on your resume!
question everything
(47,551 posts)remember that astronaut who drove all the way across country to Florida to kill a lover of her lover? (Or something like that)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)Why do you think so many whites from Thurmond's state vote Republican?
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Yay, team!
Anything not to side with a Republican, ever!
And we really mean ANYTHING!
Response to woo me with science (Reply #8)
graham4anything This message was self-deleted by its author.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)3000 people, all children of a parent, died on 9-11
The people who died here in my beloved NYC, DIED.
9-11 IS NOT some college debate fantasy.
9-11 happened in REAL life.
ALMOST ALL gave permission to go to Afghanastan. And Get OBL and anyone who helped do 9-11.
Real people lost real jobs and America went bankrupt due to 9-11. That is real.
REAL buildings DIED on 9-11. The planes(real planes filled with real people) went into REAL buildings and killed everyone on the plane and in the building
It was no fantasy
It was no conspiracy theory
IT HAPPENED.
And even Ron Paul and all the others voted to go into Afghanastan, and do what was necessary.
And to prevent another 9-11.
And the 19 were LEGALLY here in the USA. They legally were on airplanes.
And the president, as found in the constitution, has the legally authorized authority to keep this country safe from attack. It is right there.
There is nothing illegal about it.
Just about 100% of every elected leader voted and re-voted for that.
Because REAL PEOPLE died.
Because 100s of millions of people were affected by that event.
millions personally lost jobs
millions are having the current economic problems
BECAUSE AMERICA went bankrupt on 9-11, everything for a decade stopped.
And the surest way to ensure a bad president comes in in the future is to give comfort to Rand Paul or Ron Paul and have the libertarian party become 2016's Green party.
There are ways of voicing displeasure with a specific issue, without giving comfort to Rand and Ron Paul or Eisenhower on the basis of one line out the millions of lines they wrote or spoke in their life. None of those three are anyone any liberal or democratic or progressive person should emmulate.Because none of those three would agree one second on just about every single minority or social issue there is.
More people should have come out in 1952 and 1956 and voted for AES.
Yeah, but I guess he was boring or ugly or had some issue that voting a killer General made more sense. And yet people on the far left today still quote Ike. Regardless of what he did.
(and yeah, how humane he was after the war ended to the POWS according to everything one reads about the direct aftermath in the days immediately following peace. Fog of wars?
Fog of memory is more apt.)
Rand Paul is laughing all the way to his bank account this morning.
God hopes the 2016 election is not close enough to steal.
and those against Brennan, why aren't they for the complete removal of bullets from the hands of private people in the USA all across the USA.
What bullets do is certainly not humane and goes against all fundamentals of decency.
I do not understand how if Ron and Rand Paul were true to what they spew, they are not
100% for complete removal of bullets in the street.
Houston, there is a space oddity in that disconnect.
Response to graham4anything (Reply #31)
woo me with science This message was self-deleted by its author.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Not only that,
1. God is *very* worried we will help a Republican in 2016.
2. *REAL* people died in 9/11. As opposed to the fake people that some terrorists and Republicans say our drones kill.
3. TERRA is everywhere. Maybe even on your street! We must trust our President to know which street to bomb, or whom to torture. Courts would only get in the way.
4. Opposing drone murders and torture/rendition means agreeing with a Republican. And it might help a Republican win an election.
5. Republicans support BULLETS, which are even worse.
Amazing how the bullhorn TERRA message to rally the masses is recycled from year to year, with only minor changes depending on which arm of the corporate party is taking its turn.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)the asshole that killed the nice, kind, meek Dr. Tiller was a rightwing extremist
the mad bomber was a terrorist
Those are terrorsts.
and they are real and exist
unless one lives in a coccoon, those people exist.
Myself, I am more worried about going to the supermarket, the movie theatre and anywhere else supposedly I have a right to peaceful assembly
my rights are violated and I think that is more important than some college debate over some theoretical that in reality does not exist.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,688 posts)It's delicious this morning.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)you are deluding yourself.
This was about sticking his thumb in Obama's eye, plain and simple.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)the use of drones!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Brennan was among agency officials who were uncomfortable with the use of physically coercive tactics, despite the legal opinions that supported their use. He expressed concern, according to these officials, that if details of the program became public, it would be CIA officers who would face criticism, rather than the politicians and lawyers who approved them.
"If John says he expressed reservations about some techniques, I believe him because he's an honest guy," said John McLaughlin, who was deputy CIA director at the time.
"Mr. Brennan had significant concerns and personal objections to many elements of the EIT (enhanced interrogation techniques) program while it was under way," a senior administration official said in response to Reuters' inquiries. "He voiced those objections privately with colleagues at the agency."
link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/us-obama-nominations-brennan-idUSBRE90T07I20130130
I understand having reservations about a guy who worked in the Bush CIA but Brennan was a DC bureaucrat who didn't have any direct role in the interrogation / torture program. Also, he's worked closely with Obama for four years already, and Obama has praised his work, and the entire purpose of the agency is supposed to be to assist the president, so I don't see the benefit of second-guessing this nomination. And when you get down to cases the torture objection seems weak.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Bush. Whether or not he personally tortured or approved it is irrelevant. He verbally supported it and he did nothing to stop. He defended Bush for doing it. It is a (another) stain on Obama's record to nominate this POS.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Just to clear the air, is there a source you can think of that supports your claim?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)"He Was The Agency": Ex-CIA Analyst Questions Brennan Claim He Couldnt Stop Waterboarding, Torture
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/8/he_was_the_agency_ex_cia#transcript
AMY GOODMAN: That was CIA Director-designate John Brennan being questioned yesterday during his Senate confirmation hearing by Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
For more, were joined by Melvin Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, director of the Centers National Security Project, his latest book, National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism.
Your response to that line of questioning, Mel Goodman?
MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, I think it was very disturbing on a lot of levels. Its a step backward, for one thing. Former Director Leon Panetta did define waterboarding as torture. The attorney general has defined waterboarding as torture. But John Brennan wont do so. And also, when John Brennan was a deputy executive assistant to Buzzy Krongard and to George Tenet, remember, he was the cheerleader for some of these onerous policies, particularly renditions and extraordinary renditions. So, for John Brennan today to say he read the Senate committee intelligence report on torture and he learned things he never knew before and that he was shocked with what he learned, this is a case of incredible willful ignorance. Hes been at the top of the CIA and now at the top in the White Housein fact, hes probably stepping down in becoming the director of the CIA. He has written the manual for targeted killings. Hes written the disposition matrix, which is something out of George Orwell, that allows the president of the United States to pick targets based on evidence that Brennan collects from the CIA, presumably the same kind of evidence that was taken to the country in 2002 and 2003 that allowed the United States to go to war. So, all of this is extremely disturbing about who Brennan is.
JOHN BRENNAN: I did not take steps to stop the CIAs use of those techniques. I was not in the chain of command of that program. I served as deputy executive director at the time. I had responsibility for overseeing the management of the agency in all of its various functions. And I was aware of the program. I was ccd on some of those documents. But I had no oversight of it. I wasnt involved in its creation. I had expressed my personal objections and views to mysome agency colleagues about certain of those EITs, such as waterboarding, nudity and others, where I professed my personal objections to it. But I did not try to stop it, because it was, you know, something that was being done in a different part of the agency under the authority of others, and it was something that was directed by the administration at the time.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Mel Goodman, your response to his answer?
MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, very disturbing for him to say he was in a different part of the agency. He was the agency. He was on the seventh floor of the agency. He was an executive assistant to the director and to the executive secretary of the CIA. He was the one they allowed to go on Sunday morning talk shows to defend renditions, and particularly extraordinary renditions, which involve not only kidnapping people off the streets of Europe and the Middle East and Africa, but sending them to countries where we knew these people would be tortured.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)to the actual policy makers, per the info you posted. Brennan says he expressed concerns about torture privately, and Goodmans Amy and Melvin (are they related?) don't dispute that. Goodman simply points out that Brennan didn't object publicly. That would have meant whistle-blowing on the CIA, and I suppose Brennan could have quit in protest and become a whistle blower, if it's actually possible to quit that agency, but I don't think it is.
In any case, the long and short of it is: a) Brennan didn't set the torture policies, b) he's said that he privately objected to them, and c) there are sources on record confirming Brennan's claim listed in the Reuters article I posted above.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)screams, "Rookie!"
Globalizing Torture: Ahead of Brennan Hearing, International Complicity in CIA Rendition Exposed
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/7/globalizing_torture_ahead_of_brennan_hearing#transcript
MARGARET WARNER: So, was Secretary Rice correct today when she called it a vital tool in combating terrorism?
JOHN BRENNAN: I think its an absolutely vital tool. I have been intimately familiar now over the past decade with the cases of rendition that the U.S. government has been involved in, and I can say without a doubt that it has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives.
MARGARET WARNER: So is itare you saying, bothin two ways, both in getting terrorists off the streets and also in the interrogation?
JOHN BRENNAN: Yes. The rendition is the practice or the process of rendering somebody from one place to another place. It is moving them. And U.S. government will frequently facilitate that movement from a country to another.
MARGARET WARNER: Why would you not, if thisif you have a suspect whos a danger to the United States, keep itkeep him in the United States custody? Is it because we want another country to do the dirty work?
JOHN BRENNAN: No, I dont think thats it at all. Also, I think its rather arrogant to think that were the only country that respects human rights. I think that we have a lot of assurances from these countries that we hand over terrorists to that they will in fact respect human rights. And there are different ways to gain those assurances. But also, lets say an individual goes to Egypt, because theyre an Egyptian citizen. And Egyptians then have a longer history in terms of dealing with them, and they have family members and others that they can bring in, in fact, to be part of the whole interrogation process.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was John Brennan speaking to PBSs Margaret Warner in 2005.
AMY GOODMAN: The report is called "Globalizing Torture." It also identifies 54 foreign governments that aided the United States in these operations. The countries include Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
One country thats not listed is India, but the report is making headlines there, too, because, for more, were joined now by the reports author, Amrit Singh. Shes senior legal officer at the National Security and Counterterrorism program at the Open Society Justice Initiative. The full name of her new report is "Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition." Shes co-author with Jameel Jaffer of the book Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond_. And interestingly, the new torture report has become news in India. The human-rights-secret-detention-amrit-singh">headline in The Times of India reads, quote: "Prime Ministers Daughter Blows Whistle on 54 Nations that Helped U.S. Detention Programme." Another website headline, their story: "PMs Daughter Takes on CIA over Torture." Thats right, our guest, Amrit Singh, is the daughter of Indias prime minister, Manmohan Singh.
Amrit Singh, welcome to Democracy Now!
AMRIT SINGH: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Lets talk about John Brennan first. He goes to Capitol Hill today for his confirmation hearing. You wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times. What do you think he should be asked? What do you think of the nomination of John Brennan to be head of the CIA?
AMRIT SINGH: Well, I think John Brennan should be asked what he meant when he said that he was intimately familiar with cases of rendition and that rendition is an absolutely vital tool in combating terrorism, because by the time Brennan made that statement in December of 2005, a number of people had been rendered to foreign governments where they were tortured. By December of 2005, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery had been rendered to Egypt and subjected to electric shock. By December of 2005, Maher Arar, a Canadian national, had been rendered to Syria and subjected to being locked up in a tiny grave-like cell and beaten with cables. By December 2005, a number of other individuals, including Khalid El-Masri, had been rendered. Khalid El-Masri was captured and kidnapped in Macedonia and transferred to Afghanistan and abused. A recent court decision by the European Court of Human Rights found that Khalid El-Masris treatment by the CIA amounted to torture. So I think that John Brennan has a lot of explaining to do as to what exactly he meant.
Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/globalizing-torture-cia-secret-detention-and-extraordinary-rendition
Nice guy you're pimpin' there. Fully-capable of putting aside his personal convictions to get down to the business of torture and assassination.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He's defending rendition, which he defines as "the practice or the process of rendering somebody from one place to another place. It is moving them." He also says that assurances that the receiving countries "will in fact respect human rights" are part of the arrangement.
Since Brennan wasn't flying the planes, working in the receiving countries, or running the program, I'm willing to take him at his word. Not everybody in the CIA knows everything going on in other parts of the agency, and as we've already established, Brennan was an assistant, not the director. So despite DN's disingenuous efforts to undermine his nomination, I don't think that objections on these grounds are warranted.
p.s. how do you know they aren't related? Do you know one of them personally?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)So, how do you think this thread is going? Are you swaying readers with your masterful skills of persuasion?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)in the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler" or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Those "assurances" Brennan received carried as much weight as his own personal convictions.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And in the interview with Warner he acknowledges the necessity of respecting human rights and getting assurances that receiving countries would do the same. We know those assurances were broken and torture was SOP, but nevertheless, Brennan isn't defending it, or doing it, or ordering it to be done, dubious insinuations notwithstanding.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)That makes everything OK.
Not.
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
magellan
(13,257 posts)Thank you for sharing that DN! transcript. It astounds me how anyone on DU can defend Brennan's nomination.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)and probably won some Dems while doing this. Later he eff the Dems. I heard Code Pink was cheering him as well, they will be one of the first to .. . . by those got darn drones.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,165 posts)The genie is out of the bottle and we're making enemies everywhere. If not by drone strikes then by example of our hideous bigotry and selfish way of life.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Progressive Policy @ home only for the cost of unconditional support for the empire.... yuck
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)conservatives site spewing as well? Are they posting that conservative should think like Rand Paul in this matter?
sad day when an x bush creep is welcomed into the fold now i see what Obama meant by not looking back but looking forward
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)not Bremer, right?
JI7
(89,281 posts)and attention from the same types who supported his dad.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Sounds about right.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)My main concerns are economic only.
These paranoid and trivial straw man arguments about government power...
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)And your crazy dad, too.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)...instead of doing the chickenshit "60-vote threshold" thing, which is what they usually do.
I'm furious with Harry Reid for allowing that sort of thing to go on, but if Rand Paul wants to go up there and shoot his mouth off till he drops, God love him. At least he has the balls to do that, instead of doing a secret hold and hiding behind his party's unwavering unity.
Bucky
(54,087 posts)He's what you'd call a worthy adversary. He crazy walks his crazy talk. So the honesty is a relief, but not necessarily better for the Republic.
AAO
(3,300 posts)Bucky
(54,087 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)Bucky
(54,087 posts)Yay, it's a moral victory.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)randomly assassinating anyone here, without due process, with drones or anything else. That isn't happening, it isn't going to happen. Now, foreign-soil drone attacks against terror suspects, American or otherwise: THAT is the real sticky question involving Brennan (who is the main player behind that program), but Republicans like that sort of thing, so they're not filibustering for THAT reason. The whole thing was a joke, but even smartish lefties are falling for the stunt.