Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

So let me see if I understand this.

One guy is filibustering the CIA nominee based on an incomplete and vague set of questions and answers -- which one side says is nothing new and the other side says changes the game. The filibuster has no chance of succeeding, and all the little political wonks are coming out of the woodwork and taking sides based on the party of the senator involved.

More dysfunctional Washington? A man standing up for his morals? A pointless charade? Just bluster and theater in preparation for the next presidential race?

I don't care. Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of governments watching over their own citizens. For the next few hours, I could care less which party Rand Paul is from. I stand with him. We can all tear him down tomorrow. There's plenty of time for that later.

View on HN

To quote Lessig from his Twitter today (which is how I found out about the filibuster and started watching at work):

There is plenty to disagree with Rand Paul about. But this filibuster is not. Thank you, sir.

http://twitter.com/lessig/status/309415470879100928

> So let me see if I understand this.

> One guy is filibustering the CIA nominee

Yes.

> based on an incomplete and vague set of questions

No. See [1]

> [vague set of] answers

Yes. See [2]

> The filibuster has no chance of succeeding

No. They can go ad infinitum. Already others are joining in so the debate doesn't die. Eventually if we want a CIA head, we'll get a new nominee. Also, Paul is repeatedly saying that with firm answers, he'll end the filibuster.

The rest of your post is spot-on. Makes me finally proud of or political process for the first time in a few years.

[1] http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan1.pdf http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdf http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan3.pdf

[2] http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanPaul.pdf http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse...

They cannot go ad infinitum. The longest is 28 hours and Paul ended his around 13 hours. This is because if Paul himself leaves, the filibuster he started ends. He can let others speak but he must stay the entire time.

He didn't use the bathroom for 13 hours, and as some pointed out: a long filibuster is less a contest between a speaker and a Congress and more about a man versus his bladder.

Well, truckers and video game players solved this problem long ago. If he doesn't think this is serious enough to use some sort of collection system to "go" then he must not be very serious.

The Pauls are not neoconservatives, that is for sure. They are traditional paleoconservatives.

There are few politicians we'll agree on everything with. I think that political parties are just dangerous hiveminds. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, ALL parties are inundated with dogma.

My votes go to politicians who are sincere, honest, and intelligent. Not to republicans or democrats.

I agree, I think that there shouldn't be parties. Representatives should be individuals serving their people.

However if you do away with parties, you are not that far removed from China's one party system. Which isn't heralded as a utopian government by any stretch.

The problem is not that there shouldn't be parties, but rather there should be LOTS of parties, all with an equal say and equal potential to gain office. Power brokering should happen not by party, but by the issues. There should be no majority whip or minority whip. If you need an example of how extreme the parties power goes, try to remember who was NOT invited to any of the presidential debates. (Hint: there were more than two presidential candidates)

> Drones are bad news, especially armed drones in the hands of governments watching over their own citizens.

What I don't understand, is why when John McClane was shot at by an F-22 Raptor in Live Free or Die Hard, why there wasn't a big outcry at that time. There were no complaints, no HN threads that I remember, and certainly no filibusters in Congress.

None of the reviews talked about some "dystopian future America", they said that shit blew up and it was otherwise an action movie.

Why is it OK for the American military to use an F-22 Raptor on one of their own citizens but drones are no good?

Mind, I understand completely why people are concerned about why the military could or could not be employed domestically; I just don't understand why people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters, rocket launchers, bazookas, motorized anti-aircraft weaponry, bum-standard rifles and carbines, etc.

It's just another weapon that the government has now. When the government gets more powerful, the citizens get less powerful than their government. Most citizens fear being totally helpless against their government's power. So small incremental increases in government power, like drones, usually spell bad news for the citizens.

Do people fear increase in government power because it's actually bad for them, or because they've been told that government is bad in general?

I've been beginning to think it's not only the TSA types who employ the "state of fear" philosophy to drum up support for their cause.

In any case drones aren't even a tenth as destructive as helicopters. I don't even care what rule people pick at this point but it would really help my own blood pressure if we could at least just choose to be consistent for once.

Why don't you ask an adult black male about the ever increasing power of the government and whether or not he should be afraid:

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009.[43][not in citation given] According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population.[44][45][46]

Or the fact that 1 in 10 people in the U.S. are currently incarcerated in the prison system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St... http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/...

Can I ask that same adult black male whether they'd want to be alive in America in 1963, 1943, 1893, and 1863?

It's true though, that stupid gub'mint is getting so intrusive. Why, I'll bet pretty soon they'll be putting up propaganda posters telling us to save animal fats from our dinner, or actually (gasp!) rationing food like we were a bunch of Commies!

"Can I ask that same adult black male whether they'd want to be alive in America in 1963, 1943, 1893, and 1863?"

Do you honestly think this is valid reasoning? "You might be in prison for a victimless crime, but at least you're not a slave"?

The reasoning is based on your own description of the "increasing power of government" being the problem. I was pointing out that the opposite trend is in many ways what's actually going on.

That's either because government is not the major factor in the oppression of black males, or because government isn't strong enough.

That's no justification for government abuses where they occur, but I was never claiming that was OK.

How about asking the adult black male whether it is legal for the army to fire on enemy soldiers during a war, the question which is the subject of this discussion. Let's stay on topic.

Actually it's more like whether it is legal for the army to fire on enemy sympathizers.

The incarceration rates (disregarding racial issues for now) aren't only to blame on the government, but iirc mainly on the privatization of the prison business; there was a huge spike in incarceration rates and length of prison terms when that came about in the 90's (I believe), good graph about that out there somewhere.

While those numbers are distressing, one has to ask if government is their biggest threat. More black males are killed by other black males yearly than the entirety of what the KKK did.

Go look at Chicago for example, it may actually be safer to be in jail. I am not sure which statistic is actually worse.

The TSA announced earlier this week that they were going to allow people to take small folding knives and similar onto planes in carry-on baggage as of next April. Strangely, this has provoked almost zero response from people who like to complain about the TSA. I'm inclined to conclude that a lot of people like having something to complain about more than they like having their complaints acted upon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSiHRNQlQo

You just compared the reaction of viewers of a theatrical event in a fictional action movie to reality.

We still have people who argue over whether Han shot first, whether Kirk or Picard would win in a fight, or whether they'd be on Team Edward or Team Jacob.

In such a world, I'd like to think that something as absolutely chilling as the military using deadly force against an American citizen without trial, based just on some assholes's say-so, would at least have warranted a comment. But I'm willing to bet most hackers who saw the movie were much more annoyed by the inaccurate "hacking" scenes than they were by the F-22.

Analogies generally compare specific similarities in two otherwise unlike things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Analogy

First, it was an F-35.

Second, the faked CGI jet had a pilot.

Third, since we're going to admit fairy stories as evidence, Once upon a time csallen was wrong. the end.

The second point really drives home the fallacy, but accepting tall tales as evidence is super dangerous. you should never do that. ever.

Finally, argument from analogy is always a very weak. There is always a more direct argument to be made. If analogy is the best argument you can muster, you need to reevaluate your position.

I'm not arguing his argument was flawless. I'm pointing out that an analogy is not invalid simply because there are differences in the two situations. Thus, "First, it was an F-35." and "Second, the faked CGI jet had a pilot." are irrelevant criticisms. Neither one answers the question that mpyne was asking via his analogy, and which he also explicitly stated at the bottom of his post:

>> "...why people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters[, etc?]"

Let's completely ignore the ridiculous Die Hard reference for a second.

I don't know how I feel about drones, but it seems a large part of the opposition is the unmanned part. I have two problems with this argument:

(1) They're not unmanned. Somebody is actively controlling them.

(2) Why does a pilot make a difference? Pilot's don't get a choice in their targets. This isn't a movie where pilots can decline to fire on a target. They'd certainly get a court martial, their career would be ruined, their life would be ruined with a dishonorable discharge, and depending on the circumstances they very well could go to prison.

So, I guess the reason I feel somewhat indifferent to drones is that I don't really get the main point of opposition. What makes a drone so much different than planes?

Piloted aircraft and pilots are expensive. Drones have no pilots, and are thus much less expensive. It is not economically feasible to monitor vast swaths of land with vast numbers of piloted airplanes. It is economically feasible to monitor vast swaths of land with vast numbers of drones.

But that's not an argument against drones, that's an argument against large-scale government surveillance.

Ignoring whether or not you think government surveillance is a positive, negative, or neutral, the fact that a piece of technology makes it easier doesn't mean that technology is bad.

Edit: I'm not an expert in either field, but I imagine a similar argument could be made against satellites. That doesn't mean we should have a filibuster against GPS and Sirius.

Drones are actually on par for cost with F-15-generation fighter craft (i.e. pre-F-22). Drone pilots (yes, they have pilots) are required to go through the same training as the other pilots (in the USAF at least, who operates most of them), they draw much of the same special incentive pay, etc.

So I'm not even sure that drones are really that much cheaper, except perhaps if it's feasible to remotely pilot a large number of drones with just a single drone pilot.

But either way, even a cheap drone is more expensive than a soldier with a rifle.

It's obvious that the training process for drone pilots is much less rigorous than that for normal pilots.

I haven't dug into the numbers, but I guarantee you that all else being equal, a drone is much, much less expensive than a piloted plane of similar capabilities. That much is also obvious.

Is this reddit or hackernews?

There is another argument about due process ...but what's the difference btwn a drone and an officer on the ground when confronted with a suspect. Say there is a suspect. The FBI could send in a drone or could send in officers on the ground. Drone or officers could find the suspect dangerous and have to take him out. In either case there is no due process procedure. I think this line of argument is a dead end. Actually, as noted elsewhere, you probably have more chance at surviving this confrontation with a drone than with people --people, if they feel threatened could find it justifiable to shoot more quickly than a remote pilot.

This is pedantic but an F-22 can't hover. That was an F-35B.

That was a movie, and this is real life.

Did this question really need to be asked?

The sad thing is drones probably could be used in a way which helps individual rights vs. the government.

In an arrest scenario (even for the most trivial of crimes), if someone resists an individual officer, it can easily turn into a justifiable self-defense shooting by the officer. If you struggle, grab for the officer's weapon, or if he even thinks that is happening, training and prudence is that he should end the threat as quickly as possible.

OTOH, if someone resists a robot, I'm fine with the robot being destroyed; just send two more to effect the arrest. Only in a situation where someone would be escaping and immediately harming other human life would it be justifiable for the drone to use lethal force.

I have zero faith that our government would restrict its use of drones in that way, though.

"if someone resists an individual officer, it can easily turn into a justifiable self-defense shooting by the officer."

That reminds me of that robocop scene where a robot enters the room and starts shooting everything heh.

I watched on C-SPAN and a Democrat named Ron Wyden participated and in the process implied he had multiple discussions with Paul about the morality and constitutionality of drone strikes. Perhaps I'm naive, but I believe he was standing up for his morals and that it was a sign of Washington actually functioning.

As Ron Paul's son, I would expect nothing less from Rand.

"It turns out this isn’t just a fleeting alliance. For some time now, Wyden and Paul—along with two other senators, Republican Mike Lee of Utah and Democrat Mark Udall of Colorado—have been working together to try to curb the broad authorities the Obama administration has asserted in the war on terror. The advent of this group, which calls itself the Checks and Balances Caucus, is certainly not the first time in political history that the libertarian right has allied with the civil-liberties-minded left. Yet at a moment when inter-party cooperation is almost nonexistent in Washington, any bipartisan alliance—especially one that includes some of DC’s most committed ideological opposites—is both unusual and noteworthy."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/26/rand-paul-a...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com