Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Launches a Filibuster Against Drone Strikes On US Soil
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that at about 11:45 am today, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul took the floor of the Senate to launch one of the chamber's rarest spectacles: a genuine filibuster. Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes. He called Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to rule out drone strikes to kill an American on U.S. soil 'more than frightening,' adding, 'When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It's an easy question. It should have been a resounding, an unequivocal, "No." The president's response? He hasn't killed anyone yet. We're supposed to be comforted by that.' Any senator can opt to hold the floor to speak on any matter, but the practice of speaking for hours on end is rare, especially in the modern-day Senate, where the chamber's rules are used more often to block legislation or to hold show votes on trivial matters. Paul has since been joined in his symbolic effort by Republicans Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Tex.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.). He has also gotten some bipartisan support from Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.). Paul suggested that many college campuses in the 1960s were full of people who might have been considered enemies of the state. 'Are you going to drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?'"
It's true. This man has no dick.
It's a fake debate using FUD to take the eyes off the fact that the republicans have lied and moved the goal post on the economy and budget issues.
If an American soldier decides to us military firepower on civilians, should a drone be used to stop him? I think we would agree that of a person shot him, it would be thankful, but use the scary word drone and suddenly it's all terminator.
Nothing the President has done, and no interpetatiojn the white house presented included killing Americans on American soil.
If an American is giving information, or aiding the enemy, and if it's ion hostile soil, and if the military can't get a team to the person to capture them, and we can't work out something for the local military/police to take action, then we can use a drone.
And again,l if a team was sent in that killed that person in a firefight, no one would care..add drone to the mix, ohh scary.
And if the president gave a No answer, the republican would all over him for being soft an terrorism. If he said yes they would be all over him..
Tell me, have you told anyone about the child rape you committed?
You have three answer 2 mean you have done it, one mean you aren't going to talk about the issue.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Regular and ongoing military operations are generally what is considered being "at war". Certainly by the people who are subject to the regular attacks that, incidentally, kill 50 innocents for every terrorist. Obama has started wars in Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. We didn't have any regular and ongoing operations in any of those countries before he came in to office. Maybe Pakistan, I could be wrong about that one.
Nobody with any brains expected anything to happen.
If anything, the Occupy protestors were even more clueless than the anti-war protesters - they didn't even have a coherent agenda, let alone a coherent plan.
Protests don't fix problems or stop wars - anyone who has made even the most cursory study of history should be capable of recognizing that. Action makes changes - at the ballot box, in the places you choose to spend your money, etc... etc... But pretty much anyone under the age of forty or fifty has been raised in a culture where taking a stand is thought as unseemly - "raising consciousness" and "highlighting the plight" and "bringing attention to" and other no risk see-and-be-seen puppet shows are what are rewarded socially.
Oh, sure they're protesting - from the safety of their keyboards. They're twitting and liking and forwarding... that's even easier than protesting and gives the same faux feeling of "accomplishing" something. (They're also voting for the same rascals - because they're of the 'right' party... and then wondering why things don't change.)
Unbathed, paid and bussed-in "protestors" trespassing, robbing and raping. We're supposed to obey their stinking demands?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate