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?'"
is not my friend. But damn if I'm not happy someone is asking these questions and putting up some serious opposition.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
He had a lot of people thinking about it, until he offered up dropping a Hellfire on Jane Fonda. Now they're all thinking "Let's not be hasty here. This is the perfect test case."
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Paul says he is 'alarmed' at the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes.
Why isn't EVERYONE IN CONGRESS alarmed by this?
That's why we elect the Populist candidate every once in awhile... keeps it interesting... well done, Senator, well done.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
After due process of law, isn't that the constitutional justification for the death penalty ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Once again, Ron Wyden's name appears in a noble context. The man needs to run for President.
Holder's comment that set off Paul was that he wouldn't rule out a President using drone attacks on US soil during such hypothetical events as those of 7 Dec 1941 and 11 Sep 2001. From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.
There's only reason why you would refuse to rule it out - it's already happened, and if it becomes commonly known, you'll have nowhere to retreat to politically.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It seems apparent that Rand Paul, and many other Americans, don't actually understand what the drones actually are or how they work. The drones are no different to when the US uses cruise missiles launched from warships, or manned warplanes, or CIA wetwork teams to kill people in foreign countries. They're still controlled by the military, flown by actual operators.
There isn't some secret army of robots that Obama unilaterally controls which no one can stop. The only different thing which has happened is that the drones make doing something which tends to annoy other nations way easier since you don't run the risk of political blowback from a downed pilot in a foreign country.
Since he's a senator, you could say the entire state is his district.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Anyone remember the MOVE bombing in 1985? Drone or no drone, this is what we're moving towards.
Proverbs 21:19
preferably in Rand Paul's district
Perhaps you need a refresher course in American Civics.
Senators don't have districts. There are two, and both represent the whole state. Only representatives are districted.
Obama asserts that due process does not necessarily imply trial by a jury of your peers.
Then perhaps President "Constitutional Scholar" should consider reading the document he supposedly went to school to study, specifically:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
In short, I don't give two fucks what some asshat politician 'asserts,' the definition is there, in plain fucking English, so that everyone will know their rights.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Well. If drones are good enough to attack Afghans, why should there be an exception for americans? Also " the lack of definition over who can be targeted by drone strikes" wasn't a problem in Afghanistan.
But really. If you replace "americans" and "afghans" by "people", why can drones be allowed to kill some people and not some other. Again, nationality is not the issue. The question is more about either the reason to use drones or even to use drones at all.
Privacy is terrorism.
I don't like the idea of filibusters, it's a way to take advantage of the system and prevent legislation with majority support from passing. That said, I don't care for the drone strikes either. So I don't know which is the lesser of the two evils.
Do I support the filibuster, based on the contemptable bill it's trying to block, or do I condemn it since it could just as easily be used tomorrow to prevent passage of a bill I'd like to see pass and that has majority support? I suppose in the end, if the rest of the system were working correctly, (and often it's not) then majority should rule, and filibusters should be illegal. I can't support something that's bad in principle simply because it's convenient for me this time.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Due Process is the magic term.
No, Insurrection Act is the magic term. The President has the authority to use the military as needed to "suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition...that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
An armed drone strike is the functional equivalent of launching a manned jet strike. While there is a lot of hyperbole on both sides, this is one point we need to make sure stays absolutely clear. If you wouldn't hit it with an F-15 on US Soil, you shouldn't use a drone to do it.
Good-bye
Er, i would think Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year old son could demonstrate the damages of the loss of his father's income to support him when Obama assasinated him.
Oh wait! He can't! They killed him too.
Seriously, this tyrant Obama needs to be stopped.
I'd wager that calling for Obama's death by striving for a treason indightment, trial, conviction, and capital punishment, you know, subjecting him to the rule of law, would be twisted as a threat against the life of the president.
In Liberty, Rene
I agree. The constitution applies to EVERYONE, not just citizens.
HOWEVER, I'm going to get a bit pedantic and argue that 'held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime' is DIFFERENT than the government moving to kill you. The government is also charged with "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
IF you have a group of citizens in the position of being part of an Insurrection, the government isn't holding them to answer for a crime. It's treating them as enemy combatants. In which case no trial is necessary, and killing them isn't even really supposed to be a punishment.
That's why I sort of agree with Holder. My position at the moment is "While I cannot currently envision a scenario where a drone strike would be the best option against US Citizens on US Soil, I cannot rule out such a scenario occurring. The authorization for such action would have to come from the highest levels and be subject to the strictest scrutiny'.
I don't read AC A human right
in which case a filibuster would have done some good, for once.
all the Administration would have had to do is pass out a two sentence news release... "The Government is committed to securing our citizens' safety, as demanded in the Constitution. If we find enemy combatants in action within the nation's borders, we'll deal with them as on any other battlefield."
but then, the GOP is committed to NO for Obama's 8 years in office, so they're the drones boring in Congress. total warheads.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The ticket to win 538 electoral votes.
New Economic Perspectives
Replace "shouldn't" with "wouldn't" and I agree. That's exactly the thing - a drone is just a remote operated jet.
If we were discussing a device which would acquire and fire on targets completely autonomously, then there'd be something worth talking about it.
It seems apparent that Rand Paul, and many other Americans, don't actually understand what the drones actually are or how they work. The drones are no different to when the US uses cruise missiles launched from warships, or manned warplanes, or CIA wetwork teams to kill people in foreign countries. They're still controlled by the military, flown by actual operators.
There isn't some secret army of robots that Obama unilaterally controls which no one can stop. The only different thing which has happened is that the drones make doing something which tends to annoy other nations way easier since you don't run the risk of political blowback from a downed pilot in a foreign country.
You're totally right. I don't think any of us here support cruise missile stikes, bombardments by manned warplanes, or CIA hitsquads on American soil against US persons either. I think Senator Paul entirely understands what he's talking about. It's Eric Holder that doesn't understand that a drone strike is no different than the other methods you listed above.
What the Administration wants to say is that the war on terror has no geographical boundary. In a war zone, the government is exempt from any due process requirements, because there are no courts operating in the zone, just soldiers.
Now apply this to the entire U.S. See how easy that was? So sure, Fonda can be targeted, if the military chain-of-command says she's a threat.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Comment removed based on user account deletion
but this is definitely a great moment for him. I hope he can keep it going until he forces an answer out of the White House.
This is how filibusters ought to be done!
The problem with saying "no drone strikes on US citizens on US soil" is that there are scenarios where a drone strike may be useful. If they are banned drones can never be used.
For example, say someone steals a tank or armours a bulldozer? Both have happened. Wouldn't if be great if they could be stopped by one missile? Perhaps a well defended radical group who have taken hostages?
This all goes back to "drone paranoia" and the false assumption that drones are not human controlled. We have no problems with helicopter surveillance but drone surveillance is bad. There is no outcry that the President has not outlawed jets firing on US citizens on US soil but if drones do it it is bad. When one outlaws the use of a tool a valid use will eventually come up and we will wish we had not banned it.
When they decide the U.S. Drone Strike Information Center will be based in Kentucky. Maybe put another one in Utah. Then spread those Drone manufacturing and ordinance plants around.
The only problem I have with this debate is the implicit assumption that it might be okay to murder non-Americans with drones.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"As part of the filibuster, Rand Paul will be reading through the script of 'Battlestar Galactica'. His aides are out shopping for an appropriately slinky red dress." Serious, heard it on reddit.
That's all I can say. The powerful just want more power and they will get it no matter what the common people say or do. It's just that simple.
Sorry America your screwed. But the rest of the world isn't that far behind so don't sweat it to much.
Urban Nightmare
Living the dream...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are correct that drones strikes are not fundamentally different than those other forms of military attack. That said, in no way does that mean that Rand Paul doesn't understand the drone situation. He's merely leveraging recent news regarding them to highlight the fact that these sorts of attacks can take place at all. THAT is the real issue here, rather than that it just so happens to be drones carrying them out.
Also, we should keep in mind that Obama, as President of the United States, is also the Commander in Chief of the military, effectively allowing him to exercise unilateral control over much of what we're discussing. Ideally, there would be checks and balances in place to ensure that no one's rights are violated, and that if they are he will be held accountable for having done so, but with secret tribunals where you are neither present nor informed of their having happened taking the place of true due process, even those checks are being stripped away.
Yeah, I expect that.
Come and get me. I fucking dare ya!
I sincerely believe in dying on my feet instead of living on my knees if necessary.
In Liberty, Rene
I Agree! This "Regime" has been CHIPPING away at OUR Rights and Our Protection AGAINST a Tyrannical Gov, or a Gov that we find ourselves NEEDING Protection from! What a bunch of brain dead zombies who do NOT realize just HOW serious this is! Really?? You all do NOT believe this is a Dangerous Precendent?? Might as well live in a Country far worse than China or North Korea, or any other Country where You as a Citizen or NON Citizen, will truly have to Pray you yourselves or a Member of your family is Not Targeted as OTHER COLLATERAL Damage...aka Children and INNOCENT People HAVE BEEN Taken OUT by drones or oops I Missed the REAL TARGET....because IT HAS HAPPENED and if you people....? Give this TOO to THIS REGIME....we then HAVE stepped a Million More steps to a Serious, Serious, Long standing Problem with OUR RIGHTS to a trial, or any Prior knowledge, and it will ALSO make More people AFRAID to GO AGAINST ANYTHING the GOV wants....we already have far too many of "those" already,,...but truly, this WILL give FAR TOO MUCH POWER to THE Pres and TO the "so-called" DOJ....which Please people, it is NOT the Department of Justice, it IS OBAMAS Department of HIS "Justice" Not OURS.....and Homeland Security, now the CIA? WOW...are WE really this CLUELESS?? Look to BENGHAZI!! More Unanswered and NEVER TO BE Answered I am SURE! YOU GO MR. Paul, too bad More don't have this FORTITUDE AND Intelligence, and frankly....balls to Stand up to Try and Protect ALL OF OUR RIGHTS as US Citizens! Our so-called Rights are slipping, no being Chipped away HUGE Chunks at a time, YET...How do you like what's happened to the so-called 9/11 Murderers? Or any of the COMBATANTS and Murderers of US Citizens on US SOIL! Yet....we are giving OUR GOV the right to Target US?? WHY do YOU think this is?? Geez, Wake UP PEOPLE!! Wake up!! It's already almost too late!
Perhaps he meant he just wants to be in his district, meaning location wise.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I listened for an hour or so while I got other work done and didn't find any room for disagreement with him. Well, 99.5% is pretty good.
Dr. Paul's presentation of Obama's position as a weak form of martial law is airtight in its logic. If the United States is operating under the Rule of Law, then Obama/Holder's position cannot hold. If Obama's position does hold, then the territory of the United States is under battlefield rules, or martial law conditions.
That it's "soft martial law" isn't comforting to anybody who's read history or studied the Constitution and laws.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Of course, there is an "except" clause right afterward that you snipped out.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
PERFECT example of why democrats have no class nor care for anything. or even a point to make.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
During the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921.
So don't think it can't happen.
You're missing the point.
Drones are getting a lot of mindshare because they're the context in which this debate is happening. But the debate is not about drones. It's about the White House's authority to kill Americans, on American soil, just because the President wants them dead.
In this instance, everyone with a brain should agree with Senator Paul -the idea of killing Americans (especially in America) without any real due process ought to be abhorrent to everyone.
First of all I'm not the one posting as an AC. Secondly, if Bush were president I highly doubt you'd be so complacent. Thirdly, Bush never assassinated a US citizen. Fourthly, in my opinion, this is and should be illegal. That is the bar the President should have to pass, in order to order a strike like this. If it is the right call, as it would have been on 9/11, congress and the senate will forgive him/her.
Yep. Obama basically wants a new, improved, all-American version of the Star Chamber.
So your position is that you need to go to a judge and show evidence on which to base a warrant to go arrest someone suspected of having committed a crime, but no warrant and no oversight of any kind is needed to simply blow the guy into bits if he's suspected of being likely to commit a crime at some point in the future.
Seriously?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Insurrection is an uprising that incapacitates the local authorities. Getting drone-bombed while sitting in a cafe is not a use case for insurrection.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Maybe. Maybe not. Do YOU want to take the chance?
Face it. Talk of "lists" and presidentially-ordered assasinations has a HUGE chilling effect on free speech, essential to protecting our liberties.
I expect there should be millions, no, tens of millions, of Americans, crying "Foul!" But, a large percentage are scared.
Well, fuck that. Who am I to call for others to point to the president and cry tyrant, if I lack the courage to do so myself?
I'm not pointing a gun. I'm not suggesting circumventing the law, only that he be held to it, like the rest of us.
I point, and I acuse. Perhaps it may induce others to have more courage and do the same. Perhaps out voices might become deafening.
Then again, perhaps not, but it is certain they won't if I stay silent.
In Liberty, Rene
Make assault rifles illegal, then make drone strikes legal.
(I'm not really a Libertarian crackpot, but boy does is our incompetent government behaving like they have an efficient plan for a dictatorship)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If we're going to say that drone strikes are ok, then what's the difference whether they happen on US soil or not? It's an awfully arbitrary delineation to say that this technology should only be used against bad guys if they happen to reside on foreign soil.
If you believe the use of military drones are ok, then why not have them patrolling the skies wherever you suspect bad guys are hiding out?
I don't think I've heard a policy reason why anyone should vote Democrat over Republican. Its usually personal attacks like this that are the reason.
you know you can trade freedom for the world for your soul. Once you're dead who cares he can have the soul while the rest are free.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Tempting, but no.
The article you linked to described privately hired aircraft, not government aircraft being used to kill US citizens. Of course it being Wikipedia it may not be a definitive description.
This site, presumably pro-union describes it that way as well.
http://www.apwu.org/laborhistory/10-4_blairmountain/10-4_blairmountain.htm
Regardless of what is being said I don't see a problem with the President authorizing use of force to kill a US citizen if the citizen is actively resisting law enforcement with his own weaponry. Drones or whatever the means doesn't signify much to me.
The problem is the idea of an Afghanistan style take out. That is too much like a summary execution without due process.
To me that would be grounds for impeachment and possible other legal action.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You know, I've gotta ask. What's the difference between a law enforcement officer killing someone in person, versus a law enforcement officer killing someone by remote? If the guy needs killing, why risk law enforcement personnel to do it when a machine can do the job with no doubt substantially reduced risk for collateral damage?
And remember, a "drone" doesn't necessarily mean a Predator. It could just as easily be a quad-copter firing a .223 calibre weapon.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
You're totally right. I don't think any of us here support cruise missile stikes, bombardments by manned warplanes, or CIA hitsquads on American soil against US persons either.
I disagree. There are circumstances under which I would absolutely support those things. VERY NARROW circumstances, mind you, but I wouldn't want them to be completely ruled out as a potential response to exigent circumstances.
"rogue tank drivers were killed by police without military being involved"
"we do NOT have a constitutional basis for killing U.S. citizens without due process"
Those two statements are completely at odds. The rouge tank drivers were killed (presumably by law enforcement) WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. There was no hearing, there was no judge, there was no jury. They were summarily executed based on the mere supposition that they intended to cause harm, without a trial.
Drones have nothing to do with it. Whether it's a man with a rifle pulling a trigger or a man with a drone-mounted rifle pushing a trigger button is really just semantics from a legal standpoint. It is currently allowed on American citizens who pose a viable threat to their surroundings and are otherwise unable to be restricted in their actions.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Yes.. and no. It's also the functional equivalent of a SWAT trooper with an automatic weapon.
No. Your point only holds because you've falsely defined one means of delivering ordinance on target as wrong because of gross physical similarities to another means - while ignoring other, equally valid but less colorful equivalencies.
The issue at hand isn't *how* someone is attacked - but who holds the legal authority to authorize the attack and process under the law by which he receives that authority.
It's been going on for quite a few years now. I don't know why anybody can seriously expect bad behaviour abroad to stay abroad. A good example is a bunch of French torturers who came home from Algeria, didn't like the French President and then decided that since they were used to working outside the rules they may as well do the same at home and try to kill their head of state.
A frequent form of argument these days is personal redefinition of words in order to make any furthur discussion meaningless. It's become so common that many see it as perfectly valid and not a failure of communication. When such people as Rumsfeld are seen to be some sort of academic elite it is not a huge surprise that people are following such bad examples.
So the short answer is no - not a dictator, king, prince, warlord, whatever - a lazy label is just going to mislead instead of telling the full story.
Maybe violating people's rights isn't such a bad thing after all...
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Or an armed soldier. Soldiers are not allowed to operate in a law enforcement/peace keeping capacity on US soil except under very specific conditions.
Ken
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't be mistaken, just as was the case with his fathers, Rand Paul is not honestly doing this in the name of liberty. Rand Paul is doing this because it is an opportunity to extend class inequality just a little bit longer. Remember Rand Paul went to college and medical school on his father's dime. He then rode into the senate on his father's legacy. There is nothing he values more than keeping his (and his father's) money. By keeping this debate open, he is able to further kick down the road any senate discussion of budgetary matters. He is also able to further delay any legislative action on actual health care matters, which makes both his and his father's practices more profitable.
Just like his father, Rand Paul is set to profit well by continuing economic disparity. He wants nothing more than to see the expansion of - or at the very least the stasis of - the deeply regressive taxation system in the US. He is all in favor of trampling on the lower economic classes in order to improve the welfare of his own.
This invariably erodes the rights and opportunities of the lower classes. This is how you bring about fascism for the people.
I particularly enjoyed your doublespeak:
Arguing for higher taxes on some bracket of population while arguing for subsidies for yourself is discrimination
Because of course anyone who can use a calculator already knows that the taxes that both Pauls constantly champion for are enormously unfair to the lower economic classes and tremendously beneficial to the higher income brackets - indeed they are, as you said, a subsidy for one bracket.
So as usual, while you are trying to fool people into thinking you are some sort of champion for liberty and freedom, your goals are transparent. You want to see the poor suffer so your heroes can pay lower taxes. You want more power to the people you admire most, with no concern for how it effects others.
In other words you are campaigning to bring fascism for the people.
Petition to remove Eric Holder from office:
http://wh.gov/GGrN
The Tea Party was actually started by big tabacco in the 1980s to stop taxation on cigarettes.
And these people think they are against crony capitalism.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
And again, you might to review the laws on this matter because it has always been legal to do this. If an American is about to fly a jetliner into a building, well guess what, it's actually legal to blow it out of the sky with military forces.
The correct question - not being addressed, and notably, which Rand Paul - in his capacity as a senator - is not introducing any legislation to deal with - is what Due Process should be for the use of this power.
Instead he's filibustering that White House won't say they can't do this - which is the right thing for them to say, because the answer is, yes they can. If they say they won't then next up on Fox News we get "Obama won't stop a dirty bomb by domestic muslims using any means! Are you at risk?"
In a way, it's actually refreshing to see somebody take the floor and speak for 12 hours straight, like they had to do in the old days. I especially liked this quote from the last hour:
I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond’s record, but I’ve discovered that there are some limits to filibustering and I’m going to have to go take care of one of those in a few minutes here
Although it must be said that he had help from some of his colleagues who appeared at various times to recite bits and pieces of pop culture and literature, including at one point a rather lengthy passage from Shakespeare's Henry V, interspersed with a few quotations from the film Patton. It was actually quite amusing, in a quaint sort of way, and definitely reminiscent of Mr Smith Goes to Washington.
People are ok using drones illegally in other people's country but not on themselves? That's hypocritical. If you want to kill brown people without a trial then you deserve the same treatment.
"Macro" Rubio is an excellent mis-spelling of his name! It perfectly captures the ability of the Rubio action figure politician to spout key political phrases in response to hot-button questions, just like a macro executes a sequence of key-strokes in response to the macro-command+defining-keystrike. It also implies the reflexive behavior of this political spouting: no thinking is required, just say what your tea-party or other masters want you to say! [equal opportunty political sniper here; ask me to respond to Obama or Holder's bizarre political anti-constitutional contortions, and I would gladly do so!]
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html ... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ..."
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
That said, I sent notes to my Senators to support Rand Paul on the narrower issue he raised via "FreedomWorks" (not saying I endorse all of their or his other campaigns).
http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-%E2%80%9Cstands-with-rand%E2%80%9D-paul%E2%80%99s-senate-fili
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
We don't need legislation. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the president or any branch of the federal government to arbitrarily assassinate people without charge or trial.
If the power is not explicitly delegated to them, they don't have the power. Something most people have never been willing and/or able to understand.
Not a bad idea actually.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Man, I've seen some distorted submissions, but this one takes the cake. Paul was filibustering Obama's nominee to head the CIA, not drones, though he repeatedly hit on themes of the overreach of executive power. It was grandstanding by Paul, period. Its purpose was to get him some exposure in the news cycle, and that was it -- mission accomplished. For what it is worth, *was* is the proper tense; it's been over since 1am EST today)
Having fun denying facts?
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/02/of-course-president-obama-has-authority-under-some-circumstances-to-order-lethal-force-against-a-u-s-citizen-on-u-s-soil-and-a-free-draft-response-to-senator-paul-for-john-brennan/
I would posit that Rand Paul is only nominally a Republican. He chose the Republican Party machinery to get elected. He is really a libertarian and I think the Republican most likely to declare himself independent if the party tries to force him to act gainst his beliefs. He is his own man. Now the real question is if he has this independent streak because of deeply heald beliefs or a cynical power play at populism. Whatever your politics, you've got to admit from a pure political standpoint this move is a masterpiece of timing and media manipulation. Watch Rand Paul closely the next ten years or so. He is a unpredictable force who plans on going places. I am not yet sure if he is Angel or Devil; but he has much bigger plans.
Practically speaking though, if I feel my Constitutional rights have been violated by being killed in a drone strike, how exactly am I going to sue in court and for what redress? My ghost shows up in court and demands immediate reincarnation?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OK, you said a lot of things I agree with, and a lot of things I strongly disagree with. Each of your statements stand fairly well on their own, so I'll group them together for convenience of discussion.
The constitution is in place for a reason. Laws are made for reasons. . . Freedom does come at a price. Having what we have has come at the cost of many lives. . . I think people need to truly look around and understand why they have the freedoms they have today.
So far we're in perfect agreement. I'll return to this later.
If you constrain law enforcement and the military too much, bad things could happen to our country. . . Law enforcement is responsible for taking peoples lives when the bad American is going to do something bad, and there are no other alternatives other than to take the bad person's life. There could easily be a time when law enforcement cannot or does not have the ability to act against bad Americans, and the military with their drones may be the only thing able to deal with these bad people. By making a law that says drones cannot be used to kill an American could easily cost another 3000 Americans their lives. This is a very complicated world we live in. We sometimes need to do things we are not proud of to protect this country. . . You can be outraged at what Holder says, but at least understand why he is saying what he is saying.
Here we diverge almost completely after the first sentence. I'll go point-by-point:
I think I do understand where Holder is coming from. I used to oppose the release of suspects whose guilt was proven via illegal searches. The fundamental question is this: "how much harm is done be releasing the guilty versus allowing Police more power to conduct searches?" I've moved over to wanting restricted police power, since I now believe that abuse of police power is the greater harm.
The constitution and our laws were written for a reason; it originally was to protect The People against abuses of power. The Ame
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
... because the "except" clause is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Unless, of course, President Obama declared War on The People. Then it would be relevant.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Look at it this way Rand. You've just spent a very hard exhausting week in Washington doing nothing and blocking every effort to actually do something to benefit the lower and middle class in the U.S. You're almost home at your mansion and feeling good that you stuck it good to that good for nothing black president. Unknown to you there is a person/terrorist/patriot set up in the woods just 200 yards from where your limo will pull up to your mansion. Guess what he has an RPG! One of those low tech, but, very effective weapons that true American patriots face in Afghanistan and other places around the world every day. Remember, those true patriots are the low lifes that you and other spoiled rich people use to fight your wars. It just happens that an unmanned drone is flying overhead and spots this person/terrorist/patriot from 10,000 feet. Now, this drone just happens to be armed with a hellfire missle. As you pull up to your mansion, the person/terrorist/patriot takes careful aim. The controller of the drone, based at Whitman Air Force Base in Missouri, has a quandry on his hands. He would like to blow this person/terrorist/patriot to hell with his missile, but, after all the debate, name calling, and just plain nasty politics that you were a major part of in Washington, a law was passed that prohibited the killing of "Americans" like this person/terrorist/patriot on American soil. He pleads with his superior officer for the "weapons free" order, but, the officer tells him NO!!! it's against the law! Then the cameras on the drone records the "whoosh BOOM" as you, your limo, your driver, and everyone within 10 to 15 yards of your limo become a fine pink mist with chunks of flesh, metal, and "fine corenthian leather" flying in all directions. This scenario could be your future Rand. Think about it!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
no contradiction, the local police are not the federal government. power not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the the states, or the people
And at the ad hominem point I stop arguing with an AC.
He is protesting something that is a complete and utter straw man. Nobody has suggested that any Americans could be targeted on american soil. He pulled it out of his ass, and has been duly chastised by both the administration AND by his own party, in the form of Lindsey Graham and John McCain beating him up publicly. Eric Holder has 'answered his question' with an unequivocal 'no', and there was no possibility that the answer would be anything else. He is trying to grab attention, and has apparently done so. Shame on him, and shame on anybody who pays attention to his ranting.
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2013/03/07/rand-pauls-filibuster-and-targeted-killings/comment-page-1/#comment-41751 This guy is the best writer and thinker on all things Drone War related, in my opinion, check him out. Good quote from him today on Rand Paul's filibuster "More important than the theater of Rand Paul’s filibuster would be its impact (if any) on rallying the sustained interest of his colleagues to examine the full scope of America’s ten years and four months-practice of targeted killings. This will only be possible if the White House—as it has promised to do for many months—decides to more comprehensively engage with Congress, the American people, and the world about this unending Third War." also sign this petition if you want https://www.change.org/petitions/international-community-united-nations-and-united-states-congress-make-targeted-killing-internationally-accountable
Terrifying is how many people think the way AC above does. Utterly terrifying is how many of those same people are convinced that, because there are so many of them that think in such a manner, said thought process is correct, and should be enshrined in law.
Big part of the rationale behind my refusal to procreate.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese