Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
pecosbill 06-Mar-13, 16:03	Ran Paul fillabuster approaching 7 hours "Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, began an old-school, speak-until-you-can-speak-no-more filibuster on Wednesday just before noon, and was still going strong hours later. Mr. Paul, who opposes the nomination of John O. Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, had previously said he would filibuster President Obama’s nominee after receiving a letter this month from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that refused to rule out the use of drone strikes within the United States in “extraordinary circumstances” like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. On Wednesday, Mr. Paul did exactly as promised, taking to the Senate floor to filibuster Mr. Brennan’s nomination. “I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the C.I.A.,” Mr. Paul began. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com Love him or hate him you have to admire his conviction!
zorroloco 06-Mar-13, 16:31	bill i do admire his conviction. but i also wonder whatnthe hell he is doing. he is filibustering john brennan's appt to head up the cia. and the reason? "I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the C.I.A.,” Mr. Paul began. “I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." i have not heard what the relevance is. what is the conection between brennan and the things paul asserts he is protesting?
softaire 06-Mar-13, 18:01	The connection is that Brennan is part of a government that has just said it will use drones to spy on and kill Americans, on American soil, without due process. Think about that and Let it sink in before you come back with one of your glib comments. If it were Eric Holder being given Senate confirmation, that would have been even better, but Paul has to work with what he has. You don't see the link with Brennan? Do you see the link to unconstitutional activities and terrorism by our government on American citizens?
pecosbill 06-Mar-13, 18:17	Softy... My problem with Holder is not on the direct questioning (he certainly didn't say that the administration "will use drones"). It was when it was asked of him: "what would he think if Congress passed a bill prohibiting the President from using drones against citizens domestically?" and he said: "That would be unconstitutional."
pecosbill 06-Mar-13, 18:20	"Will use drones to... kill Americans." I don't think he said they "will use to kill" ..... spying is sure to increase!
zorroloco 06-Mar-13, 19:11	softy so by that standard, no one in government can be appointed to anything. sorry, but i do not buy it. unless you can state specifically what brennan has done that should prohibit him from serving, a filibuster is pure political grandstanding. mind you, i am not suggesting brennan is qualified to direct the cia. i honestly do not know enough about him to make a valid judgment. what i think is that only things brennan has done or said should be cause to filibuster his nomination. doing so on general principles (the government engages in illegal activities) is wrong and one of the reasons government does not work. if paul has sufficient reason to reject brennan, he should bring them to light and convince other members not to confirm him. if he cannot do so, he loses, in the democratic process.
softaire 06-Mar-13, 21:30	z I find it difficult to believe that you didn't understand my post. I think you are being obtuse again, on purpose, but let me try again. The connection is that Brennan is part of a government that has just said it will use drones to spy on and kill Americans, on American soil, without due process. I don't think Paul is going to be successful (or even cares that much) about stopping the Brennan confirmation. Rand Paul is bringing to light and putting attention on the fact that the Attorney General of the United States would not say that it is Unconstitutional to kill American citizens on American soil, WITHOUT due process, based on the decision of an American President. He said "They don't have any intention of doing it" and that "he couldn't think of a situation where it would be warranted". THAT is NOT a statement saying they will not do it... it is, in fact, a statement saying that they could or would do it given some situation where they think it justified. Once again... the import of this is staggering... the Attorney General of the United States is refusing to rule out murder of American citizens without due process on the basis of say-so by one man. I hope I have made my thoughts clear and known.
zorroloco 07-Mar-13, 04:28	softy it does not matter unless it was brennan. i mean, it matters, of course, but not for the confirmation of brennan. holder says something and so you won't confirm brennan??? that is just bs. holding up brennans confirmation because you disagree with holder? and you accuse me of being obtuse. what is next? refusing to eat your broccoli because the meat is too rare?
zorroloco 07-Mar-13, 04:34	to be clear i am not necessarily supporting brennan. i just think, to be reasonable, mature, intelligent, and logical, brennan's confirmation needs to be based on brennan's qualities, skills, and ideas. paul is just holding up government to make a point that should be made in other ways. on a related note, why is a drone strike against an american in america any different than the feds busting down you door and shooting you dead? they already can do this... and do. why is the drone aspect so frightening to you specifically?
softaire 07-Mar-13, 07:18	z Now you are finally realizing the point of all this. Congratulations. That is exactly the question. And, I do NOT believe that you accept any of this killing Americans on American soil, WITHOUT due process... whether it be from drones or an over-reactive Gestapo DHS, or an over-zealous local police department. The ONLY reason the "authorities" have anywhere near that authority is in the case where there is armed insurrection against the government, or where there is an immediate, imminent, clear and present danger to the public. Other than that, spying on Americans without wiretaps is unconstitutional. Killing Americans without due process is unconstitutional. Breaking and entering without warrants signed by judges is unconstitutional. I KNOW you believe and accept that. That is the point of the protest... not to hold up the Brennan nomination, but to alert Americans to the fact that this administration is trying to usurp the authority to do those things. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express that fact one more time.
zorroloco 07-Mar-13, 07:29	Deleted by zorroloco on 07-Mar-13, 07:29.
zorroloco 07-Mar-13, 07:29	i do agree and i still do not understand how holding up brennan's confirmation has anything to do with these issues. it is a bad way to run government, and is one of the main problems w/ the way our government is (not) working. idiots like rand paul using the wrong tool for the job. if he has a problem w/ drone strikes, he should address that issue directly and not hold brennan's appt to head up the cia hostage.
softaire 07-Mar-13, 07:35	Sorry... I was wrong. You still do NOT understand the problem. Forgive me for thinking you actually have a brain.
zorroloco 07-Mar-13, 07:41	so explain what is the relevance of holding up brennan? you seem to think saying 'he is part of the government' is sufficient. it is not. tell me what brennan has done or said that relates to paul's (and your) plaint about drone strikes and illegal wiretaps. if you have some specifics, i will support your argument. if, as it seems, it is just a general whining about the government, you are just farting in the wind.
softaire 07-Mar-13, 14:03	Paul Scores Filibuster Win Paul Scores Filibuster Win, Gets Holder Response on Domestic Drone Use The White House issued a two-sentence response on Thursday to a 13-hour filibuster led by Sen. Rand Paul over whether the president is authorized to use a weaponized drone to kill U.S. citizens not engaged on combat on American 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?’ The answer to that question is no,” Attorney General Eric Holder wrote. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney read the letter during his daily press briefing. Paul said in an interview on CNN on Thursday that Holder's response was satisfactory and that he would allow a vote on the nomination of John Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. The vote is scheduled to begin shortly after 3 p.m. on Thursday. Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and Paul introduce a bill today that would prohibit the killing of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not present an imminent threat. “Our Constitution restrains government power,” said Cruz, a Texas Republican. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The commander in chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.” www.newsmax.com
pecosbill 07-Mar-13, 17:43	ZL... what is the relevance of holding up brennan? you seem to think saying 'he is part of the government' is sufficient. it is not. tell me what brennan has done or said that relates to paul's (and your) plaint about drone strikes and illegal wiretaps. if you have some specifics, i will support your argument. if, as it seems, it is just a general whining about the government, you are just farting in the wind. ------------------------- 1) Brennan will be the director of the CIA 2) It is the CIA that conducts drone strikes: "The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.[3]" en.wikipedia.org
zorroloco 07-Mar-13, 18:38	bill so the cia should have no director? i do not see the relevance. what has brennan said about drone strikes in the us?
ace_kyi 07-Mar-13, 20:22	The latest interpretation of drone strike is that the President and Commander in Chief ahs the right to use a drone strike if there is imminent threat. It is unclear how do do you define " imminent threat." It is unclear what kind of threat and how serious nature of the threat is and under what kind of circumstances to use a drone strike. For example, McCain was asking, Will you use a drone strike on Jane Fonda on her way to Hanoi who will be collaborating with the enemy and threaten our national security?
pecosbill 07-Mar-13, 21:53	ZL... so the cia should have no director? ---------------------- Whoa... explain that one to me... lol i do not see the relevance. what has brennan said about drone strikes in the us? ---------------------- So that is your standard? All they have to do is to not have talked about it to remove them from the discussion.... nice
zorroloco 08-Mar-13, 04:43	bill here is your rationale: <1) Brennan will be the director of the CIA 2) It is the CIA that conducts drone strikes: "The United States government has made hundreds of attacks on targets in northwest Pakistan since 2004 using drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division.[3]" > substitute any name for brennan and it is just as valid. ergo, if brennan should not head upmthe cia, neither should anyone else. as for the rest. sort of. he should not be removed from consideration for something he has not said anything about. find something he has said or sone that makes him unqualified, and i will support you. brennan also did not say anything about being against child rape. should he be barred from heading the cia because of that? no one yet has told me anything brennan has done or said that should remove him from consideration. and for the third time, i am not pro brennan. i just think his appt. or non appt. should be based on what he has done and said. not on some general disagreement with what the cia does... he is not responsible for what the cia does... yet. well... he will shortly   www.washingtonpost.com

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, chess clubs, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.