Senate Confirms Brennan to Lead CIA

Thursday, March 07, 2013

The Senate voted, 63-34, Thursday afternoon to approve President Barack Obama's nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA, ending a week of debate that featured one of the longest filibusters in Senate history. Before debate was ended, two of the Senate's Republican leaders on national security policy assailed Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and his filibuster allies, calling their rhetoric alarmist and politically motivated. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the Republicans who participated in the filibuster did a disservice by making Americans "think that somehow they're in danger from their government. They're not."

Posted by ClownShack at 04:03 PM | 145 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

ClownShack

Joined 2008/05/23
Visited 2013/05/22

Status: user

More from the Article:

"This idea that we're going to use a drone to attack a citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous," Graham said while appearing at Fox News.

Graham continued his attack from the Senate floor later.

"I don't remember any of my GOP colleagues coming here to say Bush would kill Americans with a drone," he said. "The chance of you being killed by a drone because you went to a Tea Party rally … is zero."

#1 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-07 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't remember any of my GOP colleagues coming here to say Bush would kill Americans with a drone,"

Then again, for all Bush did do, he didn't target an American citizen like Obama has.

#2 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people," McCain snarled from the floor of the Senate.

Yeah, but you thought picking Sarah Palin as your running mate WAS helpful to the American people, so your judgement is quite off IMHO.

#3 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This idea that we're going to use a drone to attack a citizen in a cafe in America is ridiculous," Graham said

Until it happens.... of course...

What does Bill Ayers think..... does he think it would be ridiculous in the 70's if we had the technology?

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2013-03-07 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rand Paul's Filibuster Belittled By John McCain As 'Simply False'

WASHINGTON -- One of the Senate's leading hawks, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), took to the Senate floor Thursday to fire back at Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), saying the Kentuckian's rant against extrajudicial drone killings was "simply false."
. . .
"I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy -- and even may demonstrate against it -- is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false," McCain said, hitting his lectern for emphasis. "It is simply false."

McCain said it was "ridiculous" and "a stretch of the imagination" to "allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies."

The Wall Street Journal editorial he quoted was even more scathing, declaring, "Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing, as a snow storm descended on Washington. The filibuster filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship."

The editorial also complained that Paul should not be shocked that the United States might kill a citizen by drone strike within its own borders, arguing that the Obama administration is well within its rights to kill enemies of the country, wherever they may be.
www.huffingtonpost.com

Rand "Let's Build An Underground Electric Border Fence" Paul is, above all else, entertaining - not court jester entertaining; more like buffoon entertaining.

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-03-07 03:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#3 LOL! FF!

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-07 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda,

Rodman breathes a sigh of relief.

#7 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Then again, for all Bush did do, he didn't target an American citizen like Obama has."

Each stands on the shoulders of the one that came before him and reaches for the stars.

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-07 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

It hurts so much having to defend Rand Paul as I disagree with almost 99.9 of what he stands for, but when someone does right, they should be applauded for it. He actually followed through on what he said and did it for 13 hours. That is amazing in today's era of soundbite and bumpersticker politics.

#9 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is sicking more people are not finding issues with the drones, Mccain and Graham need to go to hell already, they both flip flop their opines on everything when it suits them like swingers do with different partners at a party. The old guard of the Republican party just wont go away. The GOP can't to seem to understand why no one whats anything to do with them.

#10 | Posted by zack991 at 2013-03-07 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

That senile old geezer John McCain is the poster boy for term limits, and Lindsey is a little girlie boy who should be limited to one term.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"To allege that … our government would drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda," he said, "that brings the conversation from a serious discussion about U.S. policy to the realm of the ridiculous."

Yet still you won't legislate that it would be unconstitutional for them to do so.

#12 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2013-03-07 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

our government would drop a drone hellfire missile on Jane Fonda

I honestly believe that, if Nixon could have, he would have and then said "opps..we didn't know she was there. Why was she there?"

#13 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 03:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hope Brennan feels he is on a short leash. But's that it probably just wishful thinking on my part.

#14 | Posted by moder8 at 2013-03-07 04:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't remember any of my GOP colleagues coming here to say Bush would kill Americans with a drone,"

Then again, for all Bush did do, he didn't target an American citizen like Obama has.

#2 | Posted by kanrei

Yes he did.

Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi aka Abu Ali al-Harithi (Arabic: أبو علي الحاريثي ) (died November 3, 2002) was an al-Qaida operative and a citizen of Yemen who is suspected of having been the mastermind behind the October 2000 USS Cole bombing.[1][2] He was killed by the CIA during a covert targeted killing mission in Yemen on November 3, 2002. The CIA used an RQ-1 Predator remote-controlled drone to shoot the Hellfire missile that killed al-Harithi and five other al-Qaida operatives as they rode in a vehicle 100 miles (160 km) east of the Yemeni capital, Sanaa.

Al-Harithi was traveling with Kamal Derwish (Ahmed Hijazi), a US citizen, and Derwish's killing was the first known case of the U.S. government killing a U.S. citizen during the "War on Terror".[1][2]

It was reported that the Yemeni intelligence service had monitored them for months, and relayed the information to the Americans. Tribesmen in Marib province said a Yemeni air force helicopter was hovering over the area moments before the explosion occurred.

The Bush Presidency, citing the authority of a presidential finding that permitted worldwide covert actions against Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, considered al-Harithi and his traveling party a justifiable military target.[

#15 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-07 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

NG3,

THat isn't a US citizen.

Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi aka Abu Ali al-Harithi (Arabic: أبو علي الحاريثي ) (died November 3, 2002) was an al-Qaida operative and a citizen of Yemen who is suspected of having been the mastermind behind the October 2000 USS Cole bombing.[

Apples to Oranges. I know if feels good to say "Bush did it too," but the targeted killing of a US Citizen is Obama's and so far only Obama's.

#16 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Question for all those prognosticators out there: when is John McCain going to be eaten by wolves?

#17 | Posted by kamakiri at 2013-03-07 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I hope Brennan feels he is on a short leash."

Short leash from who? Certainly not his buddy, and boss, Obama.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kamal Derwish was not the target, thus Bush did not target a US citizen.

#19 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-07 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

load up the drones..and DUCK

ha ha...

seriously...I understand all the spittle on your chins with the gop folks coming out and siding against rand paul...they are merely looking out for themselves and 2014...but thats okay..don't believe that...who cares..;

BUT some of them will as for instance...several are already on my TARGETED HANDOUT...yeah thats right...thats right..I SAID targeted...

I believe in george will who said about kerry

"THE president has a right to select his own cabinet no matter how bad they are."

#20 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Geez, people stop the partisan hackery, It doesn't matter if it was Bush or if it was Obama. The handlers are the same. That is the problem.

#21 | Posted by kamakiri at 2013-03-07 04:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

KOM ON KAM...that's no fun...

#22 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-07 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The targeting and killing of a US citizen who was training and sending bombers over here, refused to come to court and said that the US legal system had no jurisdiction over him, and hid out in Yemen where it would be nearly impossible to capture him to stop his plots.

He was targeted and killed under the 2001 UAMF passed by Congress, and rightfully so.

Of course, had the Executive, whether Obama or Bush or anyone else passed on taking him out and one of his plots worked, they would be castigated even moreso than for killing him.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rand "Let's Build An Underground Electric Border Fence" Paul is, above all else, entertaining - not court jester entertaining; more like buffoon entertaining.
#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

#3 LOL! FF!
#6 | Posted by ClownShack

Says the Obama supporters.

lots of credibility there. LOL.

#24 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

More Conservative whining...

We kill US citizens ALL the time using a number of weapons. From hostage situations to exchanges of fire to other dangerous situations. There are already rules in place governing the use of force.

So why the hell are you so freaked out about the weapon they use?

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2013-03-07 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people," McCain snarled from the floor of the Senate.

Yeah, but you thought picking Sarah Palin as your running mate WAS helpful to the American people, so your judgement is quite off IMHO.

#3 | Posted by kanrei

Yeah, but you forgot that Joe Biden IS the VPOTUS!

John Kerry is SOS!!!!

We have no clue how Palin would perform, but we sure know about these two don't we?

How pathetic is that?

#26 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rand continues to display his considerable talents as a tea party idiot. The usual suspects rally to his defense.
The people of Kentucky have given him enough rope to hang himself. The system must be working.

#27 | Posted by squinch at 2013-03-07 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We have no clue how Palin would perform,"

Sure we do. She quit halfway into her term as governor, and was fired by Fox "news".

#28 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

More Conservative whining...

We kill US citizens ALL the time using a number of weapons. From hostage situations to exchanges of fire to other dangerous situations. There are already rules in place governing the use of force.

So why the hell are you so freaked out about the weapon they use?

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2013-03-07 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Conservative whining? Someone objects to the federal government being given power over your life and death, extra-judiciously, and your retort is that it's more conservative whining? Apparently he gives a rats ass about your rights considerably more than you do.

#29 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2013-03-07 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

and continues to display his considerable talents as a tea party idiot. The usual suspects rally to his defense.
The people of Kentucky have given him enough rope to hang himself. The system must be working.

#27 | Posted by squinch at 2013-03-07 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

And you continue to display how much of a joke it is to believe that this country can ever change or stop the march over the cliff that many are taking it towards. Too many have this nonchalant view things that affect them negatively.

#30 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2013-03-07 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

More Conservative whining...

We kill US citizens ALL the time using a number of weapons. From hostage situations to exchanges of fire to other dangerous situations. There are already rules in place governing the use of force.

So why the hell are you so freaked out about the weapon they use?

#25 | Posted by Sycophant

Is it against the law to kill an American on American soil without due process?

The answer is clearly "Yes" and Eric Holder couldn't say that.

#31 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rand Paul had to pull his 13 hour filibuster just to get Holder to respond.

How difficult is it to say " No , it's not legal to target an American Citizen with a drone without due process " ?

Instead he wanted to reserve that "right" so the President can kill whoever he wants. I don't care who the President is, he can't have that kind of power. We rejected a King in 1776 and I'm sure we don't want one now.

#32 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-03-07 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We have no clue how Palin would perform,"

Sure we do. She quit halfway into her term as governor, and was fired by Fox "news".

#28 | Posted by Harry_Powell

So?

LOL!!!

You still think that's worse than Biden and Kerry?

LOL!!!

I want to hear you say it.

#33 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Eric Holder couldn't say that.

"For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise."

One might recall the discussion after 911 as to whether the President could have ordered a terrorist controlled airliner shot down if it was headed for oh say, the Twin Towers, where thousands rather than hundred could be killed.

But context is such a boring consideration.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Is it against the law to kill an American on American soil without due process?"

So how many cops are you figuring are going to prison?

#35 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's always good when Jay Carney finds the time to blog on the Retort.

#36 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You still think that's worse than Biden and Kerry? "

I understand your butt-hurt, but the fact remains millions more Americans re-elected Obama to another term than suffer through the misery of a McCain or a Romney presidency. Get over it.

#37 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's always good when Jay Carney finds the time to blog on the Retort.

#36 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag
LOL

#38 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-07 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's always interesting how ad hominen is the first resort of people with no substantive retort.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

But context is such a boring consideration.
#34 | Posted by Corky

But, Corky.

That wasn't the question, was it?

The question was clear and the answer was very clear and Holder couldn't do it!

#40 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rand Paul's Filibuster Belittled By John McCain As 'Simply False'

Since when do you listen to that old goon, Starvis? If anything his denunciation of the filibuster should lend it credibility.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-07 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You still think that's worse than Biden and Kerry? "

I understand your butt-hurt, but the fact remains millions more Americans re-elected Obama to another term than suffer through the misery of a McCain or a Romney presidency. Get over it.

#37 | Posted by Harry_Powell

Harry. Most of the posts on the Retort from you are blindly supporting the Obama Administration.

Just sayen.

I don't have anything against that kind of loyalty, but I do need to point out ignorance to facts when I see it. You really think that Joe Biden would make a good POTUS over Palin???? Really????

Biden got in because of the weakness of the GOP. THat's the only explanation I have. Obama won because he's black and he's not Bush. Not because he did such a good job.

#42 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 05:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Flag:

"Is it against the law to kill an American on American soil without due process?"

So how many cops are you figuring are going to prison?

#35 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2013-03-07 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

So because a cop gets away with justifiable homicide, you think it's OK to legally suspend our rights and rid ourselves of constitutional protections? Even the act of justifiable homicide is something that needs to be judged after the fact and its something that a lot cops go to jail for.

#43 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2013-03-07 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Senate Confirms
Brennan to Lead CIA.... Hope someone gives that fool Ran Paul the message!

Just another nut from the state of Kentucky. Where do they find they people.

#44 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-07 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually getting some context with a clear framework for imminence was the point of the filibuster.

#45 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2013-03-07 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

net favorabilities of all these folks among the entire electorate, regardless of party:

Joe Biden

+2 (46/44)

Sarah Palin

-23 (33/56)

www.publicpolicypolling.com

Once again, you have your finger on the pulse of America, Eddie.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually Show Boating for an additional 2 minutes of Fame was the point of the filibuster.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 05:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama was elected because he is black...

WOW! Civil Rights has really had a strong effect, no? lol

#48 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2013-03-07 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

But context is such a boring consideration.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why did you even post in this thread? The situation that arose in 911 is something that is debated upon yes, but sadly a president does have that power once a state of national security has been declared and there is a clear and present danger presented.

National security has not been declared across the entire country and blowing someone up while they're in their house or conducting a deal does not represent a clear set danger.

I know you are paid do what you do on here, but there is NO defense for this. It is something that should be flatly accepted that a President should not have ready or legislated power to do.

#49 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2013-03-07 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Actually Show Boating for an additional 2 minutes of Fame was the point of the filibuster."

Yeah, we don't need any inconvenient questions about President Awesome's assassination policy.

#50 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kamal Derwish was not the target, thus Bush did not target a US citizen.

#19 | Posted by kanrei

Since the bad guys had been tracked for several months before the attack, and the guys tracking them knew who was in the car, I think you are really splitting hairs, Kan.

#51 | Posted by northguy3 at 2013-03-07 05:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#49 Send us a note when something even remotely like what you describe happens, 'K?

#50 I'm sure they considered your plan to send roses to the terrorist who was sending bombers here before they targeted him.

Better luck next time.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

#52 Where there is an ankle to bite.... he appears like magic!

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once again, you have your finger on the pulse of America, Eddie.
#46 | POSTED BY CORKY

LOL!!!!

You and Harry missed the point.

Bush won too!

You don't see me supporting him, do you? Why?

You and Harry support Biden. You forgot how incompetent he is.

#55 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Senate Confirms
Brennan to Lead CIA.... Hope someone gives that fool Ran Paul the message!
Just another nut from the state of Kentucky. Where do they find they people.
#44 | POSTED BY TRUTHTELLER101

Uh.....

Rand Paul made the Obama Administration more evil than the Bush Administration.

LOL!!!

This is a really fun day watching the Left running into walls.

#56 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 06:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

It seems Holder has revised and extended his remarks on droning in the US.

Surly, at least one on this thread will find that disappointing. After all, the President can ...target[] and kill[] [any one, anywhere for any reason in the perpetual war on terror] under the 2001 UAMF passed by Congress, and rightfully so.

#57 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-07 06:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rand "Let's Build An Underground Electric Border Fence" Paul is, above all else, entertaining - not court jester entertaining; more like buffoon entertaining.
#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

#3 LOL! FF!
#6 | Posted by ClownShack

Says the Obama supporters.
lots of credibility there. LOL.
#24 | POSTED BY RONPAUL AT 2013-03-07 04:21 PM | REPLY |

Are you commenting on Doc's post or are you commenting on my response to Kanrie's post?

Or did you just lump us in and add a nonsense response?

By the way, I've made no secret of my voting history and I didn't vote Obama. so. swing and a miss either way.

#58 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-07 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It seems Holder has revised and extended his remarks on droning in the US."

That worthless letter protects no one. Holder and Obama need to go.

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Head of the CIA? That means he's in charge of foreign policy.

#60 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2013-03-07 06:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The answer to that question is no."

roflmao.... one wonders if Paul could see Holders smile as he wrote that.

Holder originally spoke in the context of a situation like Pearl Harbor or 911, as he stated in his comment.

But as we all know, context is a 4 letter word to rwingers and inbred Obama Haters in general.

As I mentioned, there was much conversation after 911 as to whether the Pres had the authority to order the downing of a plane full of American citizens, and it was to that context Holder said he would, "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.".

Which of course means that he and Obama are just waiting for an opportunity to murder them sum 'Merican babies first chance they get.

Mole hills/mountains/Show Boats/morans

#61 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

By the way, I've made no secret of my voting history and I didn't vote Obama. so. swing and a miss either way.
#58 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

The denial begins.

Swing, miss. LOL!!!!

#62 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

You really think that Joe Biden would make a good POTUS over Palin?
#42 | POSTED BY RONPAUL AT 2013-03-07 05:20 PM | REPLY

Yes!

Biden would make a much better POTUS than that failure of a human being.

But, you are a Palin cheerleader, so, it's not a surprise you can't see what a colossal failure she is.

I'd be willing to bet a desk lamp would get more votes that Palin for POTUS.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-07 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

The denial begins.
#62 | POSTED BY RONPAUL AT 2013-03-07 06:40 PM | REPLY |

If thats the only retort you can come up with, awesome.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-07 06:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mole hills/mountains/Show Boats/morans
#61 | POSTED BY CORKY

Corky,

Rand Paul gained tons of credibility as a Statesman yesterday. He made mince meat out of the Obama Administration.

Are you just playing around or something? You can't really believe what you say, do you?

#65 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Holder definitely left himself an "out" in today's letter. By saying they won't attack "non-combatants" (an undefined and subjective term), the door is still open for drone strikes in the US on anyone Obama feels like labeling a "combatant."

#66 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-07 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

That worthless letter protects no one.

I don't disagree. It does show how to avoid the can of worms he opened.

Another example of Holder as a poor AG. Lawyers tell their clients that when answering questions to respond only to the question and to not volunteer additional information. Here the answer should have been, "No." Wandering into the land of hypotheticals just opens up an can of worms. Bad lawyering.

Posted by et_al at 2013-03-05 11:05 PM

#67 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-07 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#43 | POSTED BY DANIEL_3 AT 2013-03-07 05:30 PM | REPLY |

So, your take on this is "Justifiable homicide by cops is okay", but if the POTUS was to do it with a drone its not okay?

And you honestly believe a lot of cops get sent to jail for killing an innocent person?

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-07 06:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

-credibility as a Statesman

I will admit that he is every bit as much a Statesman as you are in intellectual.

-the door is still open for drone strikes in the US on anyone Obama feels like labeling a "combatant."

Yes, they are just praying for the chance to do that.

Obvious, isn't it?

#69 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

an intellectual.

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm quite happy with the answer and I'm disappointed it took a month and a half and a root canal to get it," Paul said.

#71 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-07 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Biden would make a much better POTUS than that failure of a human being.
But, you are a Palin cheerleader, so, it's not a surprise you can't see what a colossal failure she is.
I'd be willing to bet a desk lamp would get more votes that Palin for POTUS.
#63 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Where did I say I'm a Palin Cheerleader?
I'm comparing her performance as VPOTUS against Joe Biden!!!!

How can you possibly not agree with me?

That's ok. Your credibility is shot for lying anyway. You say that you are not an Obama supporter.

#72 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 06:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#72 | Posted by RonPaul

Why do you have to ruin every thread? You're a gift to the Obamabots.

#73 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

-credibility as a Statesman
I will admit that he is every bit as much a Statesman as you are in intellectual.
#69 | POSTED BY CORKY

You're not playing around, are you? You really do believe what you say.

That's amazing!

#74 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#71

As Paul obviously doesn't understand the concept of "context".... in this case "Pearl Harbor or 911".... not someone sitting on their couch at home... it's a wonder he got an answer at all.

#75 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#72 | Posted by RonPaul
Why do you have to ruin every thread? You're a gift to the Obamabots.
#73 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

I'll stop. I just love stirring the pot.

#76 | Posted by RonPaul at 2013-03-07 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, they are just praying for the chance to do that.

Nobody said they were. But deliberate hedging aimed at leaving themselves the option to do so is just as Constitutionally reprehensible, especially considering that Holder was appointed (twice) by our "Constitutional Scholar" in chief.

It must be painful to have to use strawmen everywhere you go. I guess that's what happens when you try to defend the indefensible.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-07 06:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#77 context c-o-n-t-e-x-t context

911, Pearl Harbor... couch at home... any of this ring a bell with you?

#78 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

DNC talking point list updated:

Context

Pragmatism

Real world solutions

#79 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obvious, isn't it?
#69 | Posted by Corky

In fact, and as I assume Millhiser knows, Bork is actually among the last people you'd ever expect to be favorably inclined to Lochner. Which is precisely why, to address another issue Millhiser raises, Lochner may have something to do with drone strikes: a consistent majoritarian is likely to be, well, consistent, and therefore think that any constraints on executive power have to come from the political process, not from the Constitution. And a consistent constitutionalist is likely to be consistent as well. One can argue that by reading certain rights out of the due process clause, and thus out of the Constitution, the left has tipped the balance toward the majoritarian side, which makes it more, not less, difficult to defend civil liberties. I'm not sure I fully endorse that line of causal reasoning, but there's nothing especially mysterious about it.

#80 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-07 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where did I say I'm a Palin Cheerleader?

You don't have to say it, your posts reek of your admiration for her. Even to the point of defending some of the more moronic things she's said in her 15 seconds of fame.

I'm comparing her performance as VPOTUS against Joe Biden!!!!

So you're comparing her nonperformance as VP to Biden's. I see. How about comparing her performance as a governor... oh wait she quit. Yea, that quitter would of made a horrible VP.

How can you possibly not agree with me?

Is this a real question?

That's ok. Your credibility is shot for lying anyway. You say that you are not an Obama supporter.
#72 | POSTED BY RONPAUL AT 2013-03-07 06:49 PM | REPLY |

I said I didn't vote for him. I support him when he does things that I support and I am critical of him when he doesn't.

#81 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-07 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#79

lol, as long as you can just caricature others without actually having to debate the stated points, you'll have a long life here, eh?

I pointed out that Holder's statement was in the context of an extraordinary circumstance such as Pearl Harbor or 911 and it had been taken out of context to include any ordinary American sitting on his couch at home at any given time.

Now, you don't want to debate that since the facts are obvious, but rather you prefer ad hominem instead.

But if that's all you've got, I guess that, and your Obama Hatred, it's all ya got.

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#80 Slippery slopes and Domino Theories are a dime a dozen.

Holder spoke in a certain context and defined what that was.

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#83 | Posted by Corky

Holder opened his mouth and stuck his foot in it. He's now crawfishing as fast as he can.

He stupidly responded to a hypothetical. That is the context.

#84 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-07 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

-He stupidly responded to a hypothetical

Perhaps.... people who demand transparency in policy also seem to hate it when others respond to a hypothetical, lmao.

He's a bad person either way, right?

But he couched his response in a certain context of extraordinary circumstances and even then said he would, "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.".

#85 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

As Paul obviously doesn't understand the concept of "context".... in this case "Pearl Harbor or 911".... not someone sitting on their couch at home... it's a wonder he got an answer at all.

The "drone strike a terrorist to prevent an attack" scenario is just as idiotic as the "waterboard a terrorist like Jack Bauer to get the disarm codes" that Dick Cheney loved to wheel out on a regular basis.

#86 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2013-03-07 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anybody remember Dan Rather's memorable signoff on the CBS News?

#87 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 07:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

- "drone strike a terrorist to prevent an attack" scenario

That particular terrorist won't be sending any more bombers here as he had been doing in real life.

So the analogy sucks.

#88 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

#85 | Posted by Corky
...people who demand transparency in policy also seem to hate it when others respond to a hypothetical, lmao.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

He's a bad person either way, right?

That's your strawman. Don't beat him too hard.

But he couched his response... in the land of the hypothetical. Something he should never have done. A simple "no" would have sufficed rather than give Paul an opportunity to bring home that which previously resided on the "battlefield" abroad.

#89 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-07 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#89 Doesn't know how to take a, "Perhaps".

#90 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

The liberal brain:

Wearing fur... criminal
Water-boarding ...immoral
Invading Iraq ... reprehensible
Stockpiling nuclear weapons ... atrocious

Killing American citizens with drones... pretty cool

#91 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-03-07 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted fellow GOP Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, saying the two "think the whole world is a battlefield."

Paul criticized the hawkish senators for thinking the laws of war should take precedence over the Bill of Rights. The two had criticized Paul's statements about drone policy during the Kentucky Republican's nearly 13-hour filibuster on Thursday. thehill.com

Sound familiar?

#92 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-07 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Context, people, context.

#93 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#93 | lol, as long as you can just caricature others without actually having to debate the stated points, you'll have a long life here, eh?

#94 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The presidential election exposed the liberal class as a corpse. It fights for nothing. It stands for nothing. It is a useless appendage to the corporate state. It exists not to make possible incremental or piecemeal reform, as it originally did in a functional capitalist democracy; instead it has devolved into an instrument of personal vanity, burnishing the hollow morality of its adherents. Liberals, by voting for Barack Obama, betrayed the core values they use to define themselves -- the rule of law, the safeguarding of civil liberties, the protection of unions, the preservation of social welfare programs, environmental accords, financial regulation, a defiance of unjust war and torture, and the abolition of drone wars. The liberal class clung desperately during the long nightmare of this political campaign to one or two issues, such as protecting a woman's right to choose and gender equality, to justify its complicity in a monstrous evil. This moral fragmentation -- using an isolated act of justice to define one's self while ignoring the vast corporate assault on the nation and the ecosystem along with the pre-emptive violence of the imperial state -- is moral and political capitulation. It fails to confront the evil we have become. "

--Chris Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class

#96 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

New lows in the Arts of Deflection, Obfuscation, and Excuse-Making.

In other words, the trifecta.

#97 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 10:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Liberals have assured us that after the election they will build a movement to hold the president accountable -- although how or when or what this movement will look like they cannot say. They didn't hold him accountable during his first term. They won't during his second. They have played their appointed roles in the bankrupt political theater that passes for electoral politics. They have wrung their hands, sung like a Greek chorus about the evils of the perfidious opponent, assured us that there is no other viable option, and now they will exit the stage. They will carp and whine in the wings until they are trotted out again to assume their role in the next political propaganda campaign of disempowerment and fear. They will, in the meantime, become the butt of ridicule and derision by the very politicians they supported. "

www.truthdig.com

#98 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-07 10:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

If we add Spamming, would that be a quadfecta?

#99 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 10:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't believe in atheists

Foreign correspondent and intellectual provocateur Chris Hedges explains why New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens are as dangerous as Christian fundamentalists.

www.salon.com

rofl!

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists [Paperback]
Chris Hedges

roflmao! You're right, this IS fun!

#101 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-07 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"New lows in the Arts of Deflection, Obfuscation, and Excuse-Making."

*hands NeoCorky a mirror.

#102 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-08 02:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

An other Obama pick made it!

Keep trying Republicans... we enjoy the laugh you clowns are funny!

#103 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2013-03-08 08:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

"An other Obama pick made it!

Keep trying Republicans... we enjoy the laugh you clowns are funny!"

Obama could appoint Hannibal Lecter to the FDA and you DNC propagandists would applaud.

#104 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-08 08:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

-NeoCorky

More name-calling.

Et tu, Hagbard?

Keeping Nulli up on Cripple Creek is just being an enabler.

#105 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 09:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

That isn't name calling. NeoCorky means New Corky. And this is a new Corky as you are clearly a warhawk now pushing the Neocon views of US dominance and the infallibility of the US President.

#106 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Et tu, Hagbard?"

I love that "et tu" line, the implication being that the antagonist is a traitor. Up next: Hagbard supports Al Qaeda!

#107 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-08 09:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

"More name-calling. Et tu, Hagbard?"

Yeah, my conscience took a hit after I clicked publish. Maybe I should use more emoticons to demonstrate my lack of ill intent. But that stuff bristles my ego.

Edit to #102:

"*hands my ol' pal Corky a mirror"

#108 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-08 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

I am clearly taking what Holder said in the context in which it was said and not applying it to any American sitting on his couch at any time.

Had GW taken out the terrorist in question, I would have had no problem with that, as it was authorized under the 2001 UAMF.

My views have not changed... I just have not become a Dennis Miller pants-pisser.

#109 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

-Up next: Hagbard supports Al Qaeda!

From the makers of famous Strawmen you have known and loved.

#110 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Had GW taken out the terrorist in question, I would have had no problem with that, as it was authorized under the 2001 UAMF.

We both know that is not true. You took major issue with the vagueness of the UAMF and I learned quite a lot from you in your attacks on it, such as my favorite Corkyism: you can't declare war on a tactic.

I'm sorry you don't remember that.

For the sake of peace here, I am sorry I do.

#111 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

#99 | Posted by Corky
#100 | Posted by Corky
#101 | Posted by Corky

I haven't got under anybody's skin this bad since Goatman.

#112 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-08 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I love that "et tu" line, the implication being that the antagonist is a traitor. Up next: Hagbard supports Al Qaeda!"

I chose to ignore that as the estrangement bothers me in general. Feels like Norm and Cliff sitting at different corners of the bar these days. Yeah, I don't deny I have problems.

#113 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2013-03-08 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

btw, that Chris Hedges in nice reading, Bill.

Especially liked his 2008 book on neoatheists.

And he's not a bad liberal provocateur... for a monotheistic child-murderer, that is.

#114 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

How much are they paying you, Dorky? I've come to the realization that nobody in the world is actually this obtuse.

#115 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-08 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

-I haven't got under anybody's skin this bad since Goatman.

Since you've gone exclusively to ad hominem, deflection, obfuscation, and spam over substantive retort... well, those things happen, I guess.

#116 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

in #82 I pointed out that Holder's statement was in the context of an extraordinary circumstance such as Pearl Harbor or 911 and it had been taken out of context to include any ordinary American sitting on his couch at home at any given time.

Since then there has been no argument to those facts, just nonsense.

#117 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 10:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Since then there has been no argument to those facts, just nonsense.

Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 10:01 AM |

Because that Holder statement is nonsense in light of the White Paper.

#118 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

-We both know that is not true.

That is true.

I had problems with the law's application ti Iraq, not with, as I said, this particular terrorist.

Try to keep up, K.

#119 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

-the White Paper.

The unofficial memo that doesn't really say anything different?

#120 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Try to keep up, K.

#119 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 10:04 AM |

Flagged abusive since there is not childish/trolling/passive aggressive picking a fight flag.

#121 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Try to keep up, K."

Pretty hard to keep with whiplash-inducing spin from the DNC.

#122 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-08 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

You want to talk down to me you can ignore me.

You want to be an adult and discuss this important issue, I'm here.

#123 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

#122 Still with the caricatures in lieu of retorting the points of fact made.

They're going to take those Peabodys back, Bill.

#124 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

#123 | I did discuss it. You can choose to ignore the parts you want, though.

"I had problems with the law's application to Iraq, not with, as I said, this particular terrorist."

#125 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

ONly threats huh? How do they define a threat?

However, the DOJ White Paper's definition of "imminent threat" is alarmingly broad. According to the White Paper, imminent threat does not require "clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons…will take place in the immediate future". White Paper at 7. The DOJ concluded that if the targeted individual is continually involved with planned attacks and there is no evidence suggesting "that he has renounced or abandoned such activities", the U.S. official could make a determination of "imminent threat."

jolt.law.harvard.edu

#126 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

The unofficial white paper by the new guy in his job.

Try sticking to what Holder said, which is the point of contention.

#127 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

However, the DOJ White Paper's analysis is not focused on the legality of drone strikes on the battlefield. It justifies drone strikes outside an area of active hostilities. White Paper at 1. Under the DOJ's analysis, U.S. citizens in countries that the President, Congress, or even the United Nations Security Council has not officially authorized military engagements with are open to drone strikes.

Same Harvard link, but what do they know?

#128 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

#121 rofl!

#129 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Paul was only asking for the distinction between home and abroad. For example drones have been used for something as flimsy as "militant aged men burying something on the side of the road". I thought the AG could have answered the question better by saying due process would be used at all times on American soil. For example if we have enough information to send a drone they could get a warrant and send the FBI. In the case of 9/11 drones wouldn't have helped unless you have them flying constantly and armed. And they wouldn't have helped at Pearl Harbor as they are not made for air to air combat. Simply, they are a big ass sniper rifle

#130 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

The unofficial white paper by the new guy in his job.

Try sticking to what Holder said, which is the point of contention.

See post 123.

#131 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

ONly threats huh? How do they define a threat?

In Afghanistan you just have to be right age and burying something on the side of the road. That's why Paul asked for clarification.

#132 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Try sticking to what Holder said

Has Holder re-defined "imminent threat" in a manner that is inconsistent with the white paper?

#133 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-08 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Holder is the AG, the "white paper" was an unofficial product by a newbie at his job.

#134 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Keep repeating that and maybe you might believe it.

openchannel.nbcnews.com

#135 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Keep repeating that and maybe you might believe it.

openchannel.nbcnews.com

#136 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Holder is the AG, the "white paper" was an unofficial product by a newbie at his job.

I understand that.

Kanrei said "According to the White Paper, imminent threat does not require "clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons…will take place in the immediate future."

You then said "Try sticking to what Holder said, which is the point of contention."

I am asking you whether Holder has re-defined "imminent threat" in a manner that is inconsistent with the white paper.

Let me know when you're ready to answer the question.

#137 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-08 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Goddamn newbies! They might undermine President Awesome's incredibly shrinking credibility on this or most other issues.

#138 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-08 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here is the White Paper. Would love to see how Corky knows it was written by a "newbie at his job."

msnbcmedia.msn.com

#139 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

These deflections are almost as pathetic as those the Right tried in regards to the Downing Street Memo. Really such a sad display.

#140 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-08 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jay Carney. LOL

#141 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-08 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just Calm Down About that DOJ White Paper

www.lawfareblog.com

#142 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-08 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Still waiting for an answer to #137, Dorky. I won't hold my breath.

#143 | Posted by joe at 2013-03-08 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

-the White Paper.
The unofficial memo that doesn't really say anything different?
#120 | Posted by Corky

Not really, that paper is a short form analysis of the LOAC, laws of war, applied to a foreign battlefield involving a citizen. Holder presents the unnecessary hypothetical of a criminal act by a citizen on US soil.

#144 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-08 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Still this Executive precedent does not fully address the "Al-Awlaki problem," as we might call it, because perhaps the imperatives of large-scale pitched battles against massed enemy forces means that there is no practical ability (or reason) to separately treat enemy soldiers according to their citizenship. On the other hand, when the U.S. is engaging in targeting on a much smaller and more discriminating scale, as it is with its current drone war, perhaps this practical ability to draw distinctions based on citizenship makes it constitutionally mandatory for the U.S. government to do so.

Andrew Kent from your second Lawfare link.

#145 | Posted by et_al at 2013-03-08 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

I haven't got under anybody's skin this bad since Goatman.

#112 | Posted by nullifidian

I never -- repeat NEVER -- bring up my good friend nullifidian unless I see his name. Wny? Because I never think about him unless I see his name.

Yet he never ceases to perpetually drag me into his DR life (as once again proven in his post 112) even though I haven't posted for days or weeks.

I think my good friend nullifidian needs to rethink who is under whose skin. LOL

Luv ya, sweets!

#146 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-08 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pay attention to me!
Pay attention to me!
Pay attention to me!

#147 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2013-03-08 07:18 PM | Reply | Flag: