Give Rand Paul a round of applause

[DDNYjets]

For his filibuster effort. I do not agree with him entirely on the issue but I like that he is bringing an important issue to light and holding gov't accountable. This is less about filibustering the nomination of Brennan and more about using this opportunity to get Obama and his henchmen to put their names on something.

When can the gov't kill an American citizen on American soil?

Watch Live
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

P.S. It has been a bipartisan effort with Senators from both parties including Ron Wyden (D) Oregon.

[MnJetFan]

So what is new, when was the last time we heard the actual truth from anyone with the Obama Administration.

[JETranger 206B]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

Watch Live
http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Hear, hear

[adb280z]

Nice to see a real filibuster, not the BS that's been happening for the last few years.

[JetsCrazey]

It's a little scary that our government refuses to categorically say that they will not assassinate American citizens on American soil without a trial.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by JetsCrazey

It's a little scary that our government refuses to categorically say that they will not assassinate American citizens on American soil without a trial.

Scarier that the media is again ignoring something that Obuttocks is doing that had Bush tried it, would have resulted in calls for impeachment and treason.

So who really has shredded the Constitution?

[parafly]

Originally Posted by JetsCrazey

It's a little scary that our government refuses to categorically say that they will not assassinate American citizens on American soil without a trial.

Unfortunately, it's the direction that American society is heading. As technology continues to improve over the coming decades, it's only going to get worse.

The Patriot Act should be renamed the Traitor Act. It opened the door to our coming police state, driven by fear, all in the name of security.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by quantum

Scarier that the media is again ignoring something that Obuttocks is doing that had Bush tried it, would have resulted in calls for impeachment and treason.

So who really has shredded the Constitution?

Congress should repeal the authority they gave to the President during wartime, no?

[MnJetFan]

We are talking about murdering citizens that have been charged or convicted by anyone. Brennan is another POS!

[gunnails]

I hate the idea of drones, but then I hate MNF on ESPN and self check out.

Times are changing, and drones are part of that change.

Is there some new law being proposed?

The government is a ****ed up mess, Ruby Ridge and Waco were tragedies. Still I don't fault the cops that shoot a hostage taker or a crazed man shooting people without due process.

If the president knows some great tragedy is about to occur and he has it in his power to stop it, he should. This is the way it has been for quite some time.

Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by gunnails

I hate the idea of drones, but then I hate MNF on ESPN and self check out.

Times are changing, and drones are part of that change.

Is there some new law being proposed?

The government is a ****ed up mess, Ruby Ridge and Waco were tragedies. Still I don't fault the cops that shoot a hostage taker or a crazed man shooting people without due process.

If the president knows some great tragedy is about to occur and he has it in his power to stop it, he should. This is the way it has been for quite some time.

Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures.

That is not what they are arguing. The examples you gave possess an imminent danger to society.

The point that Paul is trying to make is that it is wrong to kill an American citizen on American soil that may not pose as an immediate threat. Also drones cause a lot of collateral damage and innocents will likely be killed as well.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Big props to Rand Paul. I was hoping he'd break Strom Thurmond's record of a 24 hour filibuster. And it was certainly an important topic to filibuster on - one that should unite Republicans and Democrats.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

That is not what they are arguing. The examples you gave possess an imminent danger to society.

The point that Paul is trying to make is that it is wrong to kill an American citizen on American soil that may not pose as an immediate threat. Also drones cause a lot of collateral damage and innocents will likely be killed as well.

That contradicts what Holder wrote in his response to Paul.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by cr726

That contradicts what Holder wrote in his response to Paul.

What do you mean?

From what I understand Paul was not satisfied with Holder's response. Mainly bc it lacked a declaration that they would not use drones to kill American citizens.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

What do you mean?

From what I understand Paul was not satisfied with Holder's response. Mainly bc it lacked a declaration that they would not use drones to kill American citizens.

The Obama administration, Holder said, rejected the use of military force where "well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat." But in theory, it'd be legal for the president to order such an attack under certain circumstances, Holder said.

"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder wrote.

[intelligentjetsfan]

“To my Republican colleagues, I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone, do you?” Graham said. “They had a drone program back then, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up. What are we up to here?”




Mr. Lindsey Graham what your party is "up to" is being phony and disingenuous. Here is but one example among thousands;

We are against wasteful spending...until we are back in power or to put it another way; we were against wasteful spending from 1976-1980, then forgot about the topic from 1981-1992 then remembered it from 1992-2000 and er, um...forgot about it again from 2001-2008. But now we remembered it again!!!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2MsjwyHHD

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

“To my Republican colleagues, I don’t remember any of you coming down here suggesting that President Bush was going to kill anybody with a drone, do you?” Graham said. “They had a drone program back then, all of a sudden this drone program has gotten every Republican so spun up. What are we up to here?”





Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2MsjwyHHD

The day after he has dinner with Barry. Wonder if this was discussed.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by cr726

The Obama administration, Holder said, rejected the use of military force where "well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat." But in theory, it'd be legal for the president to order such an attack under certain circumstances, Holder said.

"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder wrote.

He basically danced around it. It is a yes or no question.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by DDNYjets

He basically danced around it. It is a yes or no question.

No, whether you agree or disagree, he answered the question.

[DDNYjets]

Originally Posted by cr726

No, whether you agree or disagree, he answered the question.

No he didn't. He basically used the hypothetical as an excuse. He answered it like a lawyer.