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.
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
From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.
Uh, I think you missed the point. Fonda was viewed by many Americans as a traitor during the Vietnam War, both for the things she said, and for an incident where she was photographed sitting on a NVA anti-aircraft gun (which she has explained was unintentional, but nobody bought that).
The comparison to Fonda is meant to bring up an image of a hated, anti-American citizen who might be worthy of getting taken out. That's the reference he was making.
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.
From there to Jane Fonda. I didn't realize she was such a national treasure.
You obviously haven't seen Barbarella.
Neither have I. :p
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
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
The ticket to win 538 electoral votes.
New Economic Perspectives
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!
At one time, the majority of Americans favored slavery. At one time, the majority of politicians didn't think women should be allowed to vote. Simple majority rule doesn't always mean the best ideas win. Sometimes, if an issue is important enough to a minority, then it needs to be addressed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
During the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921.
So don't think it can't happen.
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
Because back then, if you asked the President, "Is it legal for you to order the assassination of an American citizen, in America, without trial," he would have said "No!" without hesitation. Same with the Supreme Court.
Now, if you ask the President, he will not say "No." He won't say "Yes" either, but failing to answer such an easy question with a clear "No" speaks for itself. And the Supreme Court will not say "No" either; they will say "You can't sue us regarding your potential assassination by the United States government until such time as you can prove you were actually harmed by being assassinated by the United States government. Case dismissed."
The law has changed for the worse since the days of the Vietnam War. This isn't about drones.
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?
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.
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.