Rand Paul's filibuster

[CuteOldGuy]

I don't think that is what the letter from Holder said, CBJ7. Perhaps you could link to it for us.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CJ7

I seriously doubt there could be more than one trapped inside a house or building armed with some sort of explosive device that could level a city block, nah, of course not ... so send in SWAT and arrest them !! That'll do it !! .. and the entire SWAT team is dead meat as soon as they surround the place and start kicking down doors ...

try to grasp the big picture and apply different scenarios to the need for drones that could possibly save american lives ... fuck the terrorists

Try to grasp the BIGGER picture and apply different scenarios where politicians ABUSE the power. That aspect seems to escape you completely.

You paint the grimmest scenario possible to justify giving unlimited powers to a politician. How often has THAT backfired in the history? You bring to mind Santayana's admonition that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

You are making the EXACT same mistake that torture apologists make when they paint the ticking time bomb scenario to support the position that we must retain the option to torture. Not only do those situations rarely - if ever - occur, but once the power is authorized, the number of scenarios that fit the bill suddenly begins to expand. The next thing you know, you are torturing some guy because he met a Bin Laden associate 18 months ago and won't tell you where the BL associate is. And even though there is no ticking time bomb anywhere in sight, the BL associate MIGHT be planning a ticking time bomb plot at some point in the future. So let's torture NOW just in case it might happen.

So here you are pulling a hidden bomb scenario out of your ass to justify chief executive sanctioned executions without trials.

Let me ask you - if you think the terrorist has a bomb that can flatten the whole building, why do you need the drone and why does Obama have to make the call? If that scenario arose in the past, the police would evacuate surrounding buildings and use a bullhorn (from a 100 yards away) to demand the terrorist come out with his hands up. Why can't we keep doing that?

Are you saying you won't even demand a surrender? Just bomb without warning? Are you SURE nobody innocent is in that building?

Forget about the slippery slope. You've already slid to the bottom.

[CuteOldGuy]

Did your work for you, CBJ7. Holder caved to Paul's filibuster. In other words, it worked!

Congratulations, Senator Paul!

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

apparently Paul is too dumb to know the rules ... so someone reminded him.

quote;


The spokesman, Jay Carney, told reporters that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had sent Mr. Paul a letter saying that the president did not have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American on United States soil who is not engaged in terrorism.

like always, Paul and his teafreaks make mountains out of molehills.

your tiera is on backwards JD ...

That may be what Carney said, but Carney is known to be an idiot. The full text of the body of Holder's letter was "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."

Observe that there is a BIG fracking one-word difference between what Holder wrote and what you claim Carney said he wrote: "combat" vs. "terrorism".

[CuteOldGuy]

Thanks to Senator Paul, we have moved past this awkward moment. Now the question is, is this another Obama lie? Probably.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

That may be what Carney said, but Carney is known to be an idiot. The full text of the body of Holder's letter was "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."

Observe that there is a BIG fracking one-word difference between what Holder wrote and what you claim Carney said he wrote: "combat" vs. "terrorism".

thanks for the clarification .. that brings Pauls stupidity to an entrely different level. Even higher than I thought. No wonder the prez wouldnt answer the stupid ass question.

[Yssup Rider]

And the CIA is in capable hands...

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And the CIA is in capable hands...

[Sidewinder]

Ceej, I don't agree with you.

Originally, Sen. Paul asked a straightforward question. Holder hemmed and hawed and very carefully avoided giving a simple, straight answer. The answer that Holder originally gave very explicitly did NOT say that Obama could not order a drone attack against a US citizen on American soil.

Sen. Paul expanded on his question. Holder, and Obama, stonewalled. Sen. Paul raised the stakes, considerably. Obama and Holder finally gave in, and answered the second question.

The thing that bothers me is this: Why was it so difficult for Holder to answer the second question? Why did it take a full-on Senate filibuster, a GOOD one, to force his hand?

If I had considerably more clout than I have, I'd be asking Mr. Holder to define "combat", and differentiate it from "terrorism", to make certain that Carney was as mistaken as he usually is.

[CuteOldGuy]

Hey, Assup! Here's your guy. No wonder you're proud. He hates liberty as much as you do!

[Yssup Rider]

Well I guess your representatives failed you AGAIN, Unaliar!

[gnadfly]

I don't even want weaponized drones flying in contiguous US airspace. That includes the border.

[Yssup Rider]

How about drones without weapons?

[WTF]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2829358.html

McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, was not impressed.
"I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday," McCain said. "I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded.
"I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy -- and even may demonstrate against it -- is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false," McCain said, hitting his lectern for emphasis. "It is simply false."
McCain said it was "ridiculous" and "a stretch of the imagination" to "allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies."
The Wall Street Journal editorial he quoted was even more scathing, declaring, "Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing, as a snow storm descended on Washington. The filibuster filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship."
The editorial also complained that Paul should not be shocked that the United States might kill a citizen by drone strike within its own borders, arguing that the Obama administration is well within its rights to kill enemies of the country, wherever they may be.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by WTF

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2829358.html

McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, was not impressed.
"I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday," McCain said. "I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded.
"I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy -- and even may demonstrate against it -- is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false," McCain said, hitting his lectern for emphasis. "It is simply false."
McCain said it was "ridiculous" and "a stretch of the imagination" to "allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies."
The Wall Street Journal editorial he quoted was even more scathing, declaring, "Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing, as a snow storm descended on Washington. The filibuster filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship."
The editorial also complained that Paul should not be shocked that the United States might kill a citizen by drone strike within its own borders, arguing that the Obama administration is well within its rights to kill enemies of the country, wherever they may be.

McCain is done. So are others.