Senator Rand Paul is currently filibustering Brennan nomination

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Kudos to him for doing a real filibuster.  I'll be writing him a letter later tonight.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What kind of Tweets is he reading?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm embarrassed that Democrats don't show up and help (besides Wyden).  

Where's your concern about civil liberties now?

They realize that this is a shameless attempt by the racist party to try to paint our African American president and AG as killers who will kill scared rich white people in Houston and Bowling Green. Just one event in a long line of dog whistle tactics meant to other-ize our dear leader by playing into white fear of being murdered by the mythical angry black man. Why would the Democrats join in on this Klan rally?

Ahh... I didn't realize the ACLU and Code Pink were just a bunch of Klansmen wanting to oppose the black "dear leader".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And now Tim Scott is helping Paul... I'm assuming he's just an Uncle Tom, right?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The one thing about this I don't like is that they're filibustering a CIA nomination over an issue that Paul admits isn't really about the CIA director.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And now Tim Scott is helping Paul... I'm assuming he's just an Uncle Tom, right?

Tim Scott is definitely an Uncle Tom, but that has nothing to do with this filibuster speech.

Useful idiot seems to think that the reason this filibuster is being done is because of opposition to the President and Holder is because they are black.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And now Tim Scott is helping Paul... I'm assuming he's just an Uncle Tom, right?

Tim Scott is definitely an Uncle Tom, but that has nothing to do with this filibuster speech.

Useful idiot seems to think that the reason this filibuster is being done is because of opposition to the President and Holder is because they are black.

You can't deny that the President's race is a contributing factor.

To Rand Paul's filibuster?  Hell no.  Look at Paul's civil liberties record.  This has nothing to do with Obama being half Black.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I mean, it's not like this is a new stance of those on the right when it comes to issues like this.  Look at Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.  Although that doesn't directly apply here (since the courts have never defined what the "battlefield" is), the same underlying principle applies.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And now Tim Scott is helping Paul... I'm assuming he's just an Uncle Tom, right?

Tim Scott is definitely an Uncle Tom, but that has nothing to do with this filibuster speech.

Useful idiot seems to think that the reason this filibuster is being done is because of opposition to the President and Holder is because they are black.

You can't deny that the President's race is a contributing factor.

To Rand Paul's filibuster?  Hell no.  Look at Paul's civil rights record.  This has nothing to do with Obama being half Black.

Uh... Rand Paul's civil rights record is abhorrent. He thinks white-owned restaurants and hotels should be able to deny business to black people.

Sorry - civil liberties, not civil rights.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And now Tim Scott is helping Paul... I'm assuming he's just an Uncle Tom, right?

Tim Scott is definitely an Uncle Tom, but that has nothing to do with this filibuster speech.

Useful idiot seems to think that the reason this filibuster is being done is because of opposition to the President and Holder is because they are black.

You can't deny that the President's race is a contributing factor.

To Rand Paul's filibuster?  Hell no.  Look at Paul's civil rights record.  This has nothing to do with Obama being half Black.

Uh... Rand Paul's civil rights record is abhorrent. He thinks white-owned restaurants and hotels should be able to deny business to black people.

Sorry, civil liberties, not civil rights.  Although, I would agree with Paul that Heart of Atlanta was improperly decided.  Not that I disagree with the policy outcome, but it should've been done through an amendment, not by extending the Commerce Clause to where it never actually applied.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I mean, it's not like this is a new stance of those on the right when it comes to issues like this.  Look at Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.  Although that doesn't directly apply here (since the courts have never defined what the "battlefield" is), the same underlying principle applies.

Useful idiot has been in the past a moderate to conservative poster, Im fairly sure hes doing an impression of someone who actually thinks that way.

To be honest, I don't think I've ever noticed his posts before, so I really can't comment as to that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And his filibuster has just ended.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And now Tim Scott is helping Paul... I'm assuming he's just an Uncle Tom, right?

Tim Scott is definitely an Uncle Tom, but that has nothing to do with this filibuster speech.

Useful idiot seems to think that the reason this filibuster is being done is because of opposition to the President and Holder is because they are black.

You can't deny that the President's race is a contributing factor.

To Rand Paul's filibuster?  Hell no.  Look at Paul's civil liberties record.  This has nothing to do with Obama being half Black.

Rand Paul is a racist, so stop trying to pretend the two aren't connected...

And how is he a racist?

And even if he was a racist, you have no proof that his filibuster was done because of some alleged racism.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Disappointed he didn't go for the record.

He stopped citing he had to use the restroom.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And now Tim Scott is helping Paul... I'm assuming he's just an Uncle Tom, right?

Tim Scott is definitely an Uncle Tom, but that has nothing to do with this filibuster speech.

Useful idiot seems to think that the reason this filibuster is being done is because of opposition to the President and Holder is because they are black.

You can't deny that the President's race is a contributing factor.

To Rand Paul's filibuster?  Hell no.  Look at Paul's civil liberties record.  This has nothing to do with Obama being half Black.

Rand Paul is a racist, so stop trying to pretend the two aren't connected...

And how is he a racist?

And even if he was a racist, you have no proof that his filibuster was done because of some alleged racism.

He thinks white people should be able to deny black customers. He's a racist, like his father.

Under the Constitution, they should be able to.  The solution is to actually change the Constitution, not pass a law and lie about it fitting under the Constitution.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So the filibuster ended because Rand said he had to use the bathroom.

I don't get it, wasn't there another Senator there who can "ask him a question" so that he can leave the Senate floor like before, or was he just tired and decided to end it with a joke?

The rules, as I understand them, Paul was not allowed to leave the floor, otherwise he'd automatically yield.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Pauls and their interpretation of the Civil Rights Act are definitely racist, but his speech wasn't racially motivated. This was Rand being Rand. Maybe he had to make people forget about the Hagel vote?

So I'm a racist because I don't agree with Heart of Atlanta?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Pauls and their interpretation of the Civil Rights Act are definitely racist, but his speech wasn't racially motivated. This was Rand being Rand. Maybe he had to make people forget about the Hagel vote?

So I'm a racist because I don't agree with Heart of Atlanta?

I don't know you. Ron Paul is obviously a racist (you can fill an encyclopedia with his dubious quotes) and Rand probably isn't much different given his similar interpretations to law and the fact that he's his son.

So because his father is allegedly racist, he is too?  Come on - you've made the claim, back it up with some actual evidence.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Thank (the Christian) God for that bloodthirsty old queen Lindsay Graham, fighting the good fight in the war on Rand Paul's war on war.

Not too surprising Graham falls on the wrong side of this issue.  He's a Bush-type hawk, and this policy is definitely a policy similar to the Bush Administration's.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Holder has answered Rand Paul's stupid unrealistic hypothetical:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hopefully this can end now.

Define "combat".  This was the underlying unanswered issue that we all knew was going to eventually come up after Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's comforting to see that that has been answered, but again, what does "combat" mean?  Is planning a terrorist attack "combat"?  If not, then it's arguable that many of our drone strikes overseas have been against International War regulations, as we're killing people who pose no immediate threat to the U.S.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's comforting to see that that has been answered, but again, what does "combat" mean?  Is planning a terrorist attack "combat"?  If not, then it's arguable that many of our drone strikes overseas have been against International War regulations, as we're killing people who pose no immediate threat to the U.S.

You can't possibly believe that a Taliban fighter stops being a combatant if they're planning or sleeping or eating lunch. 

I think the best idea would be to analyze this question according to precedent on domestic law enforcement.  We know for example that a police officer can shoot to kill a fleeing suspect if there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat.  Under Tennessee v. Garner, the police could kill a terrorism suspect with no prior legal process whatsoever.  Why would that not apply to the military?

I didn't say one way or another.  I was pointing out that this hasn't yet been decided by the Supreme Court.  But if the U.S. can kill a terrorist just because at one point they committed an act of terrorism, and the U.S. can call a citizen an enemy combatant, then that means that if the U.S. calls you an enemy combatant, they can kill you whenever they want - from sleeping in your house to running into a federal building with a bomb.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's comforting to see that that has been answered, but again, what does "combat" mean?  Is planning a terrorist attack "combat"?  If not, then it's arguable that many of our drone strikes overseas have been against International War regulations, as we're killing people who pose no immediate threat to the U.S.

You can't possibly believe that a Taliban fighter stops being a combatant if they're planning or sleeping or eating lunch. 

I think the best idea would be to analyze this question according to precedent on domestic law enforcement.  We know for example that a police officer can shoot to kill a fleeing suspect if there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat.  Under Tennessee v. Garner, the police could kill a terrorism suspect with no prior legal process whatsoever.  Why would that not apply to the military?

The police cannot just go around killing terrorism suspects.

The police can kill someone who poses a significant physical threat. 

There has to be things that lead up to that though - usually an imminent threat, and there has to be good cause to believe that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's comforting to see that that has been answered, but again, what does "combat" mean?  Is planning a terrorist attack "combat"?  If not, then it's arguable that many of our drone strikes overseas have been against International War regulations, as we're killing people who pose no immediate threat to the U.S.

You can't possibly believe that a Taliban fighter stops being a combatant if they're planning or sleeping or eating lunch. 

I think the best idea would be to analyze this question according to precedent on domestic law enforcement.  We know for example that a police officer can shoot to kill a fleeing suspect if there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat.  Under Tennessee v. Garner, the police could kill a terrorism suspect with no prior legal process whatsoever.  Why would that not apply to the military?

The police cannot just go around killing terrorism suspects.

The police can kill someone who poses a significant physical threat. 

There has to be things that lead up to that though - usually an imminent threat, and there has to be good cause to believe that.

More or less that's true.  So, that's generally the law when it comes to killing US citizens on American soil.  It doesn't turn on whether the person is a suspected terrorist, combatant or a prior legal process.  It turns on probable cause and danger to police or other people.

But if somebody is "on the battlefield", the rules are different.  And when it comes to terrorism, such a person is essentially always on the battlefield.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But if somebody is "on the battlefield", the rules are different.  And when it comes to terrorism, such a person is essentially always on the battlefield.

The rules of war are different.  But, nobody is going to say that United States territory is a battlefield.  We would have to at least try to arrest a terrorism suspect in the US.

How do you figure?  Isn't U.S. territory the most important battlefield in the war on terror?