What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Three Cheers for Rand Paul (1 Viewer)

Dinsy Ejotuz

Footballguy
This is pretty good.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) began a "talking" filibuster on the nomination of John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency on Wednesday, speaking for over three hours in objection to the Obama administration's policy on targeted drone warfare.

“I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said. "I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
And Paul has been joined by Dem Senator Wyden now.In today's filibuster-by-procedure it's a pretty rare Mr. Smith goes to Washington sort of display. That it's for demanding answers on the drone program and has been joined by a Democrat is even better. This is how the Senate and the filibuster ought to work all the time.

End secret holds and keep the filibuster, but make it a talking filibuster where you can't use it simply to clog up the Senate by procedurally blocking hundreds of bills in two years without putting a public face to the obstruction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

PlasmaDogPlasma

Footballguy
How is a drone killing someone worse than a cop killing someone? There are many cases where we think it's OK for a cop to shoot someone without a trial.

 

Sarnoff

Footballguy
Why is this method of filibuster preferred? One man against 99 can postpone the inevitable as much as he wants and people cheer, but when it's 41 against 59 people putting the brakes on something, people get all upset.

 

Dinsy Ejotuz

Footballguy
How is a drone killing someone worse than a cop killing someone? There are many cases where we think it's OK for a cop to shoot someone without a trial.
Is that the case they're making? That drones are going to play cops in the sky? And what? Exactly when is the big Policeman in the Sky allowed to kills someone?Can a drone follow someone for weeks and kill them when they're headed to a meeting with a known terrorist because they're 'imminently dangerous'?Under what circumstances would there be drones in American airspace to start with?
 

Sarnoff

Footballguy
How is a drone killing someone worse than a cop killing someone? There are many cases where we think it's OK for a cop to shoot someone without a trial.
Is that the case they're making? That drones are going to play cops in the sky? And what? Exactly when is the big Policeman in the Sky allowed to kills someone?Can a drone follow someone for weeks and kill them when they're headed to a meeting with a known terrorist because they're 'imminently dangerous'?Under what circumstances would there be drones in American airspace to start with?
I think the rules preventing cops from killing people in the streets are too strict to begin with. Give them the power of instant justice and I think we'll see crime come in under control.
 

Dinsy Ejotuz

Footballguy
Why is this method of filibuster preferred? One man against 99 can postpone the inevitable as much as he wants and people cheer, but when it's 41 against 59 people putting the brakes on something, people get all upset.
Josh Marshall explained it really well IMO. When it's procedural and used 100s of times without the public even knowing who's doing the blocking there is power without accountability. Put a face to the filibuster and it adds a potential political cost. Given that the current system is completely dysfunctional that would be a start.

 

PlasmaDogPlasma

Footballguy
How is a drone killing someone worse than a cop killing someone? There are many cases where we think it's OK for a cop to shoot someone without a trial.
Is that the case they're making? That drones are going to play cops in the sky? And what? Exactly when is the big Policeman in the Sky allowed to kills someone?Can a drone follow someone for weeks and kill them when they're headed to a meeting with a known terrorist because they're 'imminently dangerous'?Under what circumstances would there be drones in American airspace to start with?
There's already plenty of unarmed drones flying around. They're very popular with sheriff's departments. This is the case Holder made about armed drone strikes in the US:
"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. "For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.
They're not talking about using drone strikes to replace arresting people. They're talking about using them to stop an imminent attack that will do massive damage.
 

Clifford

Footballguy
How is a drone killing someone worse than a cop killing someone? There are many cases where we think it's OK for a cop to shoot someone without a trial.
Is that the case they're making? That drones are going to play cops in the sky? And what? Exactly when is the big Policeman in the Sky allowed to kills someone?Can a drone follow someone for weeks and kill them when they're headed to a meeting with a known terrorist because they're 'imminently dangerous'?Under what circumstances would there be drones in American airspace to start with?
There's already plenty of unarmed drones flying around. They're very popular with sheriff's departments. This is the case Holder made about armed drone strikes in the US:
"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. "For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001," Holder continued, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Holder said he would "examine the particular facts and circumstances" if such an emergency were to arise.
They're not talking about using drone strikes to replace arresting people. They're talking about using them to stop an imminent attack that will do massive damage.
How gullible are you? Serious question.
 

PlasmaDogPlasma

Footballguy
How gullible are you? Serious question.
It doesn't seem like a serious question. It seems like an insult in place of making an argument.Holder isn't claiming any new power here. The President has always had the power to use military force to stop an attack. The only difference is the weapon is a drone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

whoknew

Footballguy
How gullible are you? Serious question.
It doesn't seem like a serious question. It seems like an insult in place of making an argument.Holder isn't claiming any new power here. The President has always had the power to use military force to stop an attack. The only difference is the weapon is a drone.
Please expand on "always had the power to use military force to stop an attack." How do you know what Holder was claiming?ETA: This issue was already discussed in another thread this morning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rich Conway

Footballguy
Why is this method of filibuster preferred? One man against 99 can postpone the inevitable as much as he wants and people cheer, but when it's 41 against 59 people putting the brakes on something, people get all upset.
Josh Marshall explained it really well IMO. When it's procedural and used 100s of times without the public even knowing who's doing the blocking there is power without accountability. Put a face to the filibuster and it adds a potential political cost. Given that the current system is completely dysfunctional that would be a start.
I love that he's doing this because it will generate headlines about the issue, but I don't have a problem with the procedural filibuster. I'd suggest we do away with filibusters altogether in exchange for requiring 67+ votes on all Senate legislation.
 

PlasmaDogPlasma

Footballguy
Please expand on "always had the power to use military force to stop an attack."
I'm not sure what part of that is unclear to you. I'll give an example though. If a civilian passenger plane is taken over by terrorists and the President concludes that it is going to be used as a weapon, he can have it shot out of the sky.
How do you know what Holder was claiming?
Because I have reading comprehension skills?
ETA: This issue was already discussed in another thread this morning.
Right on, I didn't see that one and was just replying to this one.
 

whoknew

Footballguy
Please expand on "always had the power to use military force to stop an attack."
I'm not sure what part of that is unclear to you. I'll give an example though. If a civilian passenger plane is taken over by terrorists and the President concludes that it is going to be used as a weapon, he can have it shot out of the sky.
What if they are meeting to plan the attack? Can the President use military for to stop an attack there?
How do you know what Holder was claiming?
Because I have reading comprehension skills?
Well, gosh, let's look at what Holder said - " 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."What's an extraordinary circumstance? What has to occur?
 

teamramrod

Footballguy
This is pretty good.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) began a "talking" filibuster on the nomination of John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency on Wednesday, speaking for over three hours in objection to the Obama administration's policy on targeted drone warfare.

“I will speak until I can no longer speak," Paul said. "I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
And Paul has been joined by Dem Senator Wyden now.In today's filibuster-by-procedure it's a pretty rare Mr. Smith goes to Washington sort of display. That it's for demanding answers on the drone program and has been joined by a Democrat is even better. This is how the Senate and the filibuster ought to work all the time.

End secret holds and keep the filibuster, but make it a talking filibuster where you can't use it simply to clog up the Senate by procedurally blocking hundreds of bills in two years without putting a public face to the obstruction.
A Cessna flown by a US Citizen enters airspace in DC and makes a bee line for the White House. What would Rand do? Right now US policy is to have fighters shoot it down. What difference does the drone make

?

Oh wait, I forgot, Rand is running for President. He has the sub 90 IQ vote sewed up.

Peace

 

oso diablo

Footballguy
A Cessna flown by a US Citizen enters airspace in DC and makes a bee line for the White House. What would Rand do? Right now US policy is to have fighters shoot it down. What difference does the drone make?
he's addressed this multiple times in the 6+ hour filibuster commentary.
 

PlasmaDogPlasma

Footballguy
How is a drone killing someone worse than a cop killing someone? There are many cases where we think it's OK for a cop to shoot someone without a trial.
What? Since when do we send police out on missions to execute people?
You should move to Los Angeles. Or Detroit.
Seriously, large police forces do have snipers who are sent out for the sole purpose of killing someone if a dangerous situation can't be resolved by other means.
 

Clifford

Footballguy
Please expand on "always had the power to use military force to stop an attack."
I'm not sure what part of that is unclear to you. I'll give an example though. If a civilian passenger plane is taken over by terrorists and the President concludes that it is going to be used as a weapon, he can have it shot out of the sky.
How do you know what Holder was claiming?
Because I have reading comprehension skills?
ETA: This issue was already discussed in another thread this morning.
Right on, I didn't see that one and was just replying to this one.
Combine this reach with NDAA and you have a situtation where the military can execute American citizens based on suspicion alone.They already insisted on the power to indefinitely detain and deny rights to a civilian trial or lawyer. This is not about stopping an attack. It's about doing what we are doing over in the mideast here, with the same amount of accountability, accuracy, and oversight.I'm not shocked that the admin is not coming out and admitting where they are going with this.
 

Chaka

Footballguy
How is a drone killing someone worse than a cop killing someone? There are many cases where we think it's OK for a cop to shoot someone without a trial.
What? Since when do we send police out on missions to execute people?
You should move to Los Angeles. Or Detroit.
Seriously, large police forces do have snipers who are sent out for the sole purpose of killing someone if a dangerous situation can't be resolved by other means.
I grew up in Los Angeles and I assure you they do not send police out on missions to execute citizens. The situation PDP is referring to is a special circumstance that does not cover the scope of what a drone would/could/is used for, unless you think dropping a bomb on any given hostage situation is a good idea.
 

TPW

Footballguy
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me. These folks screamed bloody murder about waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, supposed secret CIA interogation bases, etc. against proven Al-Qaeda terrorist targets outside of the contiguous United States under President Bush.

Yet, when one of their own such as Barack Obama gets into power, suddenly extrajudicial killings of American citizens inside our own borders are no big deal.

Never underestimate the tyrannical impulses of the left.

 

Gr00vus

Footballguy
Never underestimate the tyrannical impulses of the left.
Never underestimate how similar the politicians of the Democratic and Republican brands actually are. The differences are mostly cosmetic.Extrajudicial killings of humans is a big deal, regardless of where it happens or what country the humans in question happen to be citizens of.
 

Toad_1234

Footballguy
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me. These folks screamed bloody murder about waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, supposed secret CIA interogation bases, etc. against proven Al-Qaeda terrorist targets outside of the contiguous United States under President Bush.Yet, when one of their own such as Barack Obama gets into power, suddenly extrajudicial killings of American citizens inside our own borders are no big deal.Never underestimate the tyrannical impulses of the left.
:goodposting: Seriously, can anyone imagine the reaction if George Bush had said this? The liberal media would SWAMPED with endless doomsday scenarios about how fascism and Big Brother are here. Obama is slowly ushering Big Brother in and instead of outrafe, everyone is covering for him. I am not ok with this drone strike scenario at all.
 

Quez

Footballguy
This is awesome! Why won't the POTUS or Holder just simply say "we will not use drones to kill people on US soil that do not pose an immediate threat." It's that simple! This should be an issue that every senator, congressman, and American should be 100% behind.

 

Gr00vus

Footballguy
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me. These folks screamed bloody murder about waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, supposed secret CIA interogation bases, etc. against proven Al-Qaeda terrorist targets outside of the contiguous United States under President Bush.Yet, when one of their own such as Barack Obama gets into power, suddenly extrajudicial killings of American citizens inside our own borders are no big deal.Never underestimate the tyrannical impulses of the left.
:goodposting: Seriously, can anyone imagine the reaction if George Bush had said this? The liberal media would SWAMPED with endless doomsday scenarios about how fascism and Big Brother are here. Obama is slowly ushering Big Brother in and instead of outrafe, everyone is covering for him. I am not ok with this drone strike scenario at all.
You might want to sign on with the ACLU if you haven't already. They've been pretty active in standing against this.As far as outrage, there's only so much to go around. Serious outrage will happen if/when a U.S. citizen is actually attacked (and probably killed) on U.S. soil by a drone. That's not really a partisan thing, it's a lazy human thing.
 

TPW

Footballguy
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me. These folks screamed bloody murder about waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, supposed secret CIA interogation bases, etc. against proven Al-Qaeda terrorist targets outside of the contiguous United States under President Bush.Yet, when one of their own such as Barack Obama gets into power, suddenly extrajudicial killings of American citizens inside our own borders are no big deal.Never underestimate the tyrannical impulses of the left.
:goodposting: Seriously, can anyone imagine the reaction if George Bush had said this? The liberal media would SWAMPED with endless doomsday scenarios about how fascism and Big Brother are here. Obama is slowly ushering Big Brother in and instead of outrafe, everyone is covering for him. I am not ok with this drone strike scenario at all.
I think that what it really comes down to is that many if not most liberals are more angered by and afraid of their countrymen than legitimate threats from overseas.Whether it's legalizing domestic drone strikes, purchasing hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for federal agencies, or adding 2,700 MRAP armored vehicles to the Department of Homeland Security, the current administration has repeatedly shown that is it is preparing for some kind of domestic eventuality. What that might be, I have no idea.But I do know that liberals have always directed far more venom at their conservative, Christian neighbors than those such as Islamic terrorists and others who would like nothing more than the wholesale slaughter of Americans.
 

Quez

Footballguy
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me. These folks screamed bloody murder about waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, supposed secret CIA interogation bases, etc. against proven Al-Qaeda terrorist targets outside of the contiguous United States under President Bush.Yet, when one of their own such as Barack Obama gets into power, suddenly extrajudicial killings of American citizens inside our own borders are no big deal.Never underestimate the tyrannical impulses of the left.
:goodposting:How about Obama wanting to repeal the Patriot Act. I voted for Obama for many of these reasons in 2008.
 

bigbottom

I put on my robe and wizard hat
That's a decent example I guess, though the first article doesn't really contain anything that I would consider "screaming bloody murder" during the Bush administration by Holder. He concludes that certain interrogation techniques amounted to torture and stated that this administration would break from such techniques. That's not really hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if he defended techniques such as waterboarding when conducted by this administration while attacking it when it was conducted by the Bush administration. Perhaps he has done that, but the articles linked don't offer anything in that regard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bigbottom

I put on my robe and wizard hat
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me. These folks screamed bloody murder about waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, supposed secret CIA interogation bases, etc. against proven Al-Qaeda terrorist targets outside of the contiguous United States under President Bush.Yet, when one of their own such as Barack Obama gets into power, suddenly extrajudicial killings of American citizens inside our own borders are no big deal.Never underestimate the tyrannical impulses of the left.
:goodposting:How about Obama wanting to repeal the Patriot Act. I voted for Obama for many of these reasons in 2008.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought then-Senator Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act in 2006.
 

Fennis

Footballguy
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me. These folks screamed bloody murder about waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, supposed secret CIA interogation bases, etc. against proven Al-Qaeda terrorist targets outside of the contiguous United States under President Bush.Yet, when one of their own such as Barack Obama gets into power, suddenly extrajudicial killings of American citizens inside our own borders are no big deal.Never underestimate the tyrannical impulses of the left.
:goodposting:How about Obama wanting to repeal the Patriot Act. I voted for Obama for many of these reasons in 2008.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought then-Senator Obama voted to extend the Patriot Act in 2006.
He also didn't campaign for president to overturn it. He did, however, promise to close Gitmo, which he and Holder did not because they are cowards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bigbottom

I put on my robe and wizard hat
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me.
Why don't you go ahead and name names.
It is rather baffling since most or all of the liberals I know hate the erosion of our civil rights.
I tend to think most people who were screaming bloody murder about these issues during the Bush administration aren't at all happy that they've largely been continued (or, yes, expanded) under the current administration. Sure there will be partisan political hack hypocrites, but for the most part, I think those are in the minority, and many of them reside within the political machine. Here in the FFA, I tend to see more consistency than hypocrisy, despite oft repeated claims to the contrary.
 

bigbottom

I put on my robe and wizard hat
Just youtube "Obama Patriot Act."
I'm on my phone. I know there was a point five or so years before he was elected when he answered some questionnaire saying that he would support the repeal of the PATRIOT Act and replace it with something more limited. But when he became Senator he voted to extend it. I don't think he ever made repealing the PATRIOT Act a campaign issue. Does your YouTube video say that he did?
 

PlasmaDogPlasma

Footballguy
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me.
Why don't you go ahead and name names.
It is rather baffling since most or all of the liberals I know hate the erosion of our civil rights.
The answer given by Holder isn't an erosion of our civil rights. It isn't any change from the way things have been our entire lives except for the technology involved.There's certainly no hypocrisy on my part. If Bush had ordered one of those planes shot down on 9/11 I wouldn't have said boo about it. And if Obama orders a domestic drone strike to keep someone from setting off a dirty bomb none of the folks complaining in here will say boo about it either.
 

mad sweeney

Footballguy
Please expand on "always had the power to use military force to stop an attack."
I'm not sure what part of that is unclear to you. I'll give an example though. If a civilian passenger plane is taken over by terrorists and the President concludes that it is going to be used as a weapon, he can have it shot out of the sky.
What if they are meeting to plan the attack? Can the President use military for to stop an attack there?
How do you know what Holder was claiming?
Because I have reading comprehension skills?
Well, gosh, let's look at what Holder said - " 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."

What's an extraordinary circumstance? What has to occur?
Things that fall under the category of the bolded?
 

Quez

Footballguy
Just youtube "Obama Patriot Act."
I'm on my phone. I know there was a point five or so years before he was elected when he answered some questionnaire saying that he would support the repeal of the PATRIOT Act and replace it with something more limited. But when he became Senator he voted to extend it. I don't think he ever made repealing the PATRIOT Act a campaign issue. Does your YouTube video say that he did?
I think most people were for it prior to 2008, but by the campaign time it was becoming an issue. I am watching the fillibuster but I just quickly saw one were he was bashing wire tapping. I could of sworn I have seen one where he specifically says something about the Patriot Act.The point is that he used the popular anti-Bush attitude to get him in office. Many people, including myself, still see a lot of the same.
 

Thorn

Footballguy
My understanding of what Paul is pushing for is an answer to the question of whether drone strikes could be authorized against US citizens on US soil when there is NO imminent threat. Did I misunderstand something?

 

Thunderlips

Footballguy
The hypocrisy of many liberals never ceases to astound me. These folks screamed bloody murder about waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, supposed secret CIA interogation bases, etc. against proven Al-Qaeda terrorist targets outside of the contiguous United States under President Bush.

Yet, when one of their own such as Barack Obama gets into power, suddenly extrajudicial killings of American citizens inside our own borders are no big deal.

Never underestimate the tyrannical impulses of the left.
I'm pretty sure this happens everyday.

 
I posted about this a month ago in another thread:

Anyone catch this gem?

snagged the below from Reddit...

In fairness, let's look at what the Obama Administration memo leaked today does, in fact, say.

Essentially, it says that the President can kill an American citizen if that person:

1) Is outside the U.S.
OK. That's easy.
2) Is a senior, operational member of al Qaeda or its "associated groups"
Not easy. What is an "associated group"? For that matter, what is al-Qaeda? The phrase "al-Qaeda" is a term that has become too ubiquitous - a synonym, almost, for "Terrorist", and even more difficult to define. People seem to imagine al-Qaeda as this monolithic group that has a defined hierarchy, has a President, VP of Terrorist Planning, holds annual shareholder meetings and organizes potluck terrorist "meet and greets", etc. Kind of like a "terrorist corporation".In reality, "al-Qaeda" is in fact very loosely structured, and almost refers more to a concept than an actual organization. An information network, perhaps. Think Anonymous, but for people who want to militantly spread Islam in the world, rather than hack computer systems. There's no membership list, you don't get initiated into the group, and you're not under anybody's direct command. Basically, if you're the rare Muslim who has a burning desire to blow something up somewhere in the world, the "al-Qaeda network" is where you might go to get knowledge and, possibly, financing.

So that said, when the U.S. government says that it will only target "al-Qaeda", it's being knowingly opaque and vague and is playing on this false notion that al-Qaeda is a strict organization. What are the criteria they're using to determine if somebody is a member of an organization that has no formal membership? If there's video of you shaking hands with Osama bin Laden, are you "al Qaeda"? You see the problem.

3) Is an imminent threat to the U.S.
What the hell does this mean? Define imminent. Let's say I'm planning a murder. Let's follow the steps:1) I decide in my mind that I'm going to kill X, and tell Informant Y

2) I plan how I'm going to do it: show up at X's house with a gun and kill them in their sleep.

3) I get in the car and go buy a gun and ammo.

4) I get back in the car and start driving to X's house.

5) I get to X's house and am sitting in my car in front of his house, waiting for him to go to sleep.

6) I see the lights go out, get out of my car and start walking up to X's house.

7) I open X's door, start walking up his stairs, and enter his room

8) With X still asleep, I put the gun to X's head

Now, let's pretend that Informant Y (aptly named) goes to the police and tells them of my plot. At which of those steps above would it be legal for the police to shoot me without trying to arrest me and bring me to court to face charges? The answer is that the police have the power to neutralize "imminent" threats of deadly violence with deadly force.

So at which point is X in "imminent" harm of danger? If the police catch up to me on my way to the gun shop, should they be allowed to kill me on sight? What about when I pull up to X's house? Clearly they can kill me if they burst into X's bedroom as I put my gun to his head.

According to the U.S., they can kill an American citizen BEFORE #1 above. What do I mean by that? Well, allow me to quote the memo itself, verbatim:

The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.
In other words, the U.S. definition for "imminent" doesn't even need to have evidence that a plot to cause harm even exists!!! Folks, that doesn't just expand the meaning of the word "imminent", it renders it completely meaningless. That's straight out Orwellian in its obliteration of objective words with objective meanings.Finally:

4) And for which there is no practical way to capture
For starters, let's remember that the U.S. government went into Osama bin-Laden's compound hoping to capture him alive (so they claimed). They did NOT just drop a drone missile on him. This, the most wanted man in the history of the United States, mind you.That said, anybody can see how up in the air and subjective this "factor" is. What does "practical" mean? Who makes that determination? Practical in terms of cost? Risk of harm to U.S. operatives? Risk of harm to foreign military members? Remember, we don't always have to be the ones going in to get these guys. If they're abroad, then the government of the country that they're in can help us, or do it outright.

tl;dr The U.S. claims that it will only have the power to kill citizens who are 1) outside the U.S.; 2) are al-Qaeda (or affiliates); 3) are imminent threats to the U.S.; and 4) cannot be captured in a practical way. Those "factors" are far too subjective and vague.

And the gun grabbers think we're paranoid about the powers the government gives itself.

another gem:

There IS NO process to prove your innocence if you're the target of an executive assassination. Neither you nor anybody you know would ever know that you're on the list! Contrast that with the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi which stated that detainees have the right to challenge their classification of "enemy combatants" in a tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

In other words, the government has to give you a process to prove your innocence if they are going to detain you indefinitely. However, they DON'T give you a process to prove your innocence if they're going to kill you!!
 

bigbottom

I put on my robe and wizard hat
Just youtube "Obama Patriot Act."
I'm on my phone. I know there was a point five or so years before he was elected when he answered some questionnaire saying that he would support the repeal of the PATRIOT Act and replace it with something more limited. But when he became Senator he voted to extend it. I don't think he ever made repealing the PATRIOT Act a campaign issue. Does your YouTube video say that he did?
I think most people were for it prior to 2008, but by the campaign time it was becoming an issue. I am watching the fillibuster but I just quickly saw one were he was bashing wire tapping. I could of sworn I have seen one where he specifically says something about the Patriot Act.
:shrug:
How about Obama wanting to repeal the Patriot Act. I voted for Obama for many of these reasons in 2008.
If one of the reasons you voted for Obama was because he wanted to repeal the Patriot Act, I would think that you would have been confident that he had in fact made repealing the Patriot Act one of his campaign issues.
 

Fennis

Footballguy
'Thorn said:
My understanding of what Paul is pushing for is an answer to the question of whether drone strikes could be authorized against US citizens on US soil when there is NO imminent threat. Did I misunderstand something?
what a stupid thing to filibuster over. No wonder its going to fail.I thought he was filibustering over US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and other places. You know, something that is actually happening.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top