Ep22 : Rands Filibuster, the Right Questions, and Freedom of Conscience Part I
b'Hello and welcome once again to the JKPodcast. This week we\'re presenting the first of a two-part episode primarily focusing on the Freedom of Conscience. Our conversation on the topic was actually a spin-off from two other topics (also included in the episode):\\n\\nHere\'s the back story that led us to the topic:\\n\\nOn March 6th of 2013, Senator Rand Paul filibustered President Obama\'s nominee for the director of the CIA, John Brennan. His claim for filibustering was due to the ambiguity in the administration\'s policy regarding domestic drone strikes. Essentially he was arguing that the President does not, and should not ever have the ability to kill a citizen of the United States in the United States on mere suspicion of a crime.\\n\\nSenator Paul appeared to have support from both the left and the right on the issue. He managed to stand for about 12 hours and essentially concluded with the message that President Obama must assure due process in the country. Brennan assumed office 2 days later on March the 8th. As far as we know, nothing really changed.\\n\\nThe problem as we saw it is with respect to the question. The rationale behind Rand\'s filibuster was phrased with such granularity that the illegality of the President\'s new policy should be overwhelmingly obvious to every American, and really every person in the western world. But sadly it is not. This is what prompts us to explore "The Right Questions" and ultimately what it means to have others make choices for you.\\n\\n\\nMaterial from Podcast\\nMusic\\n\\nThe State by Porter Robinson.\\n\\n\\nReferences\\n\\nHighlights from Filibuster\\nRand Paul (Wikipedia)\\nRand Paul filibusters the domestic drone (article from AlJazeera)\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nTranscript of Podcast\\n\\nKevin: Hello and welcome once again to the JK Podcast. This week we\'re presenting the 1st of a two-part episode, primarily focusing on the freedom of conscience. Our conversation on the topic was actually a spinoff from two other topics also included in this episode. Here\'s the back story that led us to the topic. \\n\\nOn March 6th of 2013, Senator Rand Paul filibustered President Obama\'s nominee for the director of the CIA, John Brennan. His claim for filibustering was due to the ambiguity in the administration\'s policy regarding domestic drone strikes. Essentially, he was arguing that the president does not, and should never have the ability to kill a citizen of the United States, in the United States, on mere suspicion of a crime. \\n\\nSenator Paul appeared to have support from both the left and the right on the issue. He managed to stay in for about 12 hours and essentially concluded with the message that President Obama must assure due process in the country. Brennan assumed office two days later on March, 8th. As far as we know, nothing really changed. Here\'s a clip of Rand Paul delivering part of this filibuster: \\n\\nRand Paul: So when we ask the president, "can you kill Americans on American soil with your drone strikes - which is part of the military?" It should be an easy answer. Can the military operate in the United States? Well, no - the law says the military can\'t operate in the United States. It\'s on the books, and he should simply do the honorable thing and say he will obey the law - it\'s simple. But I don\'t get why they refuse to answer it. It worries me that they refuse to answer the question because by refusing to answer it, I believe that they believe they have expansive power, unlimited power.\\n\\nThe problem as we saw it is with respect to the question. The rationale behind Rand\'s filibuster was so granularly stated that the illegality of the president\'s new policy should be overwhelmingly obvious to every American, and really, every person in the western world - but sadly, it is not. This is what prompts us to explore the rights questions, and ultimately what it means to have others make choices for you. \\n\\nJoining us again this week is our friend, Tom DeLorenzo.'