ADDED: "Paul began speaking just before noon Wednesday on the Senate floor in opposition to Brennan’s nomination, saying that he planned to speak 'for the next few hours' in a rare talking filibuster."
“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."Historic. Brilliant. Beautiful.
Posts
242 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 242 of 242Baron Zemo wrote:
Eric Holder is such an honorable man.
We can trust him. It is not like he refused to prosecute crimes on a racist basis or was involved in running guns to Mexican drug cartels and lied about it our something.
And this is the exact position made by the MSNBC host that I linked to that was being mocked over at Hotair. Namely that she wasn't a hypocrite because she trusts Obama when it comes to drone strikes but doesn't trust Bush.
Because you are saying it and not a host at MSNBC it is somehow not as ridiculous.
A president will not be trusted by 50% of the popluation at any time. So therefore, does he have any power at all? Are you going to allow him his wartime powers, but only if a certain percentage of the populace find him trustworthy?
He either has the powers or he doesn't.
He does. Whether it's Bush or Obama.
pm317 wrote:
the question is not what one must do in extraordinary situations. The question was how does Obama WH deal with gray areas, like the guy sitting in Starbucks with a history and may be a potential for being a future problem? Obama is offing such guys overseas right now with his drones. This country got to where it is because it could define gray areas better than most other countries, especially concerning government power. why stop now?
Overseas we are using drone strikes in a war zone. Suddenly we can't use bombs in wars and target enemies? If instead of a drone we were dropping bombs on high with jets, would you be ok with it? Would you acknowledge that the president can indeed wage war, and therefore the military can do things that involve killing our enemies?
I would take the time to explain the difference between "we have no intention of doing that" and "we have no right to do that"... but I already did, so I shan't bother. :)
"You were the first thing that I thought of
When I thought I drank you off my mind
When I get lost in the liquor
You're the only one I find
And if I did the things I oughta
You still would not be mine
So I'll keep a tight grip on the bottle
Gettin' loose and killin' time
This killin' time is killin' me
Drinking myself blind thinkin' I won't see
That if I cross that line and they bury me
Well I just might find I'll be killin' time for eternity
I don't know nothin' 'bout tomorrow
I've been lost in yesterday
I've spent all my life just dying
For a love that passed away
And if there's an end to all my sorrow
And this is the only price I'll pay
I'll be a happy man when I go
And I can't wait another day
This killin' time is killin' me
Drinking myself blind thinkin' I won't see
That if I cross that line and they bury me
Well I just might find I'll be killin' time for eternity"
FR Martin wrote:
If the plane doesn't take off, I don't see why you have to blow it up. Once it tries to take off, we're back to the scenario we've already discussed over and over.
You're parsing an extraordinary circumstance and trying to have me tell you the exact details of any circumstance that is merely a hypothetical.
But ok, suppose the plane is taxing down the runway but has yet to take off. It's not stationary but has not yet taken off.
I mean, are you now asking what exact momement the drone strike should be allowed in this hypothetical down to the minute?
If youre going to say that once its' in the air we can blow it up, I dont see why you couldn't say we couldnt' blow it up if it was about to take off. It's the same difference.
And if we took out a plane with a drone or a jet, whats the difference.
The question is, are you allowing for a circumstance whereby the president could order a drone strike in this country.
In fact you aren't.
Thus your argument is an absolute one, that wouldn't even allow for extreme circumstances.
Its very simple, in extreme circumstances would you or Rand Paul allow for a president to us a drone strike or a jet to kill people, perhaps even citizens without first giving them trials. YOu don't even have know or state the particulars of those extreme circumstances. Would you allow for such a possibility at all?
jr565, .. you are not very sharp. Good night!
THe fact of the matter is liberals and many libertarians cannnot wrap their minds around the idea that we might fight a war assymetrically so can never get past the fact that many of the things we take for granted in wars will not apply to how we conduct life in civilized society or even how we normally conduct wars.
I wrote, myself, after thinking about copy and paste and search engines and whatnot, the previous lyrics and not just me but the actual authors still must, by necesity no matter how spelt, be, Clint Black and Larry Sanders.
OR Just Clint Black.
But to me, seeing the Black and Wy tour in Madison and never forgetting The Clint Black all I can thing is didn't one Louis "but with a" Strong Arm or somesuch, or something or other, sing something worthy of musicians playing?
Revenant wrote:
I would take the time to explain the difference between "we have no intention of doing that" and "we have no right to do that"..
But if you acknowledge that a president can do something in extraordinary circumstance you have to acknowledge that he has the right to do it at all. Therefore, with that out of the way we should then get to the stage where we discuss when it should be done. And in this case, I think the administration is suggesting that it should only be done in extreme circumstances, or might be done in extreme circumstances.
We might need to chop off someones leg if they get gangrene. In most cases though, we're not going to chop off peoples legs if they come to the hospital with a common cold. We have the "cutting off the leg" technique in our arsenal, but we will only do so in those extreme cases where we need to.
As with forever K. Marx I've experienced financial insolvitude, periodically but most importantly now.
My reasoning, that insolvitude and of course the concurring definitions should suffice, satisfied me and not just me BUT THE OLDEN AND HENCE YOUNGER DUMBER ME SO THERE IS THAT BY GOD DON'T FORGET.
I hope he mentions the 2461 "light tanks" that Homeland Security just bought for use here in the good old USA.
I liked it a lot better when homeland security was provided by the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. The military has a tradition of accepting civilian control. The new paramilitary bureaucracies, not so much.
Paul is droning against drones. Oh the irony.
Ted Cruz v. Eric Holder
Man oh man oh man Ted Cruz is a sharp attorney. He does not let the weasel slide by. Brilliant. Awesome.
Hey FR Martin, Israel uses drone strikes on terrorists in the middle of their city all the time. And if they are not specifically targeted by drone they are certainly targeted
So there's a quite common hypothetical of using drone strikes against people in your own society.
What say you about Israel?
I would argue that thu do what they have to.
So am I for drone strikes in Israel? Yes absolutely.
Does that mean that we are Israel and in the same situation now? Of course not. But we're talking hypothetically about when its ok to use drone strikes in the middle of polite society.
Would Israel take out the leader of Hamas if he was sitting at a Starbucks? Maybe.
They've
Taken them out while they were driving in cars minding their own business.
Thank The Lord were not dealing with terrorism
Like that in this country. But what if we were.
Would I preclude any drone strikes no matter what? How could I?
Can you imagine, a movie funded by and produced for conservatives, speaking in the most idoltrous terms specifically "why can I not admire as much as you deserve Sir" type feelings as one lucky enough to encounter Buckley, or, as it were.
Ha.
Ha ha.
Ha.
My excitement has overcome my betaness.
Alas I assume only for now.
"Had I had" they think.
With more periods liberraly disburserd but spelld more bettor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxaZeGGYji4
All Gram had he gave and I for one solute him for it.
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."
What a shame, that this is the rallying call.
Shouldn't it be "We will not let the military again attack US citizens?" Like they did in the civil war.
What is the big difference between a drone, and some guy with a sniper rifle letting a bullet fly at nearly half a mile away, and putting down some rabid guy?
Ans, the difference is the military, and the power it gives the executive branch.
We are no longer talking about righting social injustices with hundreds of thousands of American lives, and the massive pain on both sides, we are talking about an unchecked power in the executive branch.
Perhaps, given the terrorism we know will become increasingly dangerous in the future, with more rogue states with serious weapons of terror (transmittable H1N1, anyone, with perhaps the cure owned by the terrorist/rogue state?), it seems there is a hole in the constitution.
I think that's what is going on. How unfortunate that our government has become so dysfunctional, our citizens so disconnected from the realities of the world, that we can't solve this problem in an open and honest way.
Actually I had to stop listening to Ted Cruz, because he was asking a ridiculous hypothetical, and holder to his credit did attempt to answer it. Cruz then I terrupted him to say he wasn't answering him the right way. Over and over again.
Holder said based on they hypothetical he didn't even think standard use of force would be applicable, let alone a drone strike.
To deny the violence of history is to deny the truth of Buckley.
Constantly trying to say he wasn't a profit, who knew more?
"I would not think the use of lethal force let alone the use of drones would not be appropriate based on your hypothetical."
"I find it remarkable that you wouldn't be able to answer my ridiculous hypothetical with a simple no."
Eric actually answered the hypothetical the first time.
I'm more on the right than on the left, but Ted Cruz was actually embarrassing with his line of questioning.
And look, repubs can certainly hammer Obama for hypocrisy. But they supported the war on terror. Trying to pivot now and pretend that they are suddenly squeamish about dealing with terrorism and suddenly want everyone to have a fair trial makes them sound like lefty hypocrites.
Why not demand that they close Gitmo, while they're at it. Why not demand that KSM get a civilian trial?
Good gosh, jr565, you're bordering on insanity!
Holder kept using the term "not appropriate", when asked if it would be "not constitutional". If you really REALLY can't see the difference, then get off the internet and go get some help.
Rev,
"The voices in your head aren't really there, dearie. "
Yeah, I wouldn't be too sure about that...
. But Holder also wrote that he supposed it was possible under an 'extraordinary circumstance' that the president would have no choice but to authorize the military to use lethal force inside U.S. borders. Holder cited the attacks at Pearl Harbor and on Sept. 11, 2001, as examples.
No where in Holders letter is 'terrorism' mentioned. Simply that extraordinary measures may be taken.
I'm not ordinarily a paranoid or suspicious person, but,
1.6 billion rounds of ammunition strategically placed around the country.
2700 light tanks purchases by Homeland security.
Allowing drones on US soil to use lethal force.
Somebody prone to see conspiracies at every turn would call this prepping the battle space.
LarsPorsena said that Rand Paul pointed out that under Obama rules Hanoi Jane could have been droned for aid and comfort to the enemy.
Lest we forget the pictures, our current Secretary of State was just confirmed despite having offered up the same aid and comfort at Fonda's rallies.
Senator Paul must be far less concerned about treason than about our civil rights. Somehow, I always thought that treason was a most despicable crime that needed resolution but neither Fonda, Kerry nor any of the Winter Soldier bunch were so charged or investigated.
I bet hugo chavez would have loved to strike at his political detractors with the threat of jail time, actual jail time, or heck - why not just use a drone?
Flash back a few decades, but imagine current technology. Bill Ayers and friends meeting in a house plotting bombings.
What are your drone options, POTUS?
Flash back a few decades, but imagine current technology. Bill Ayers and friends meeting in a house plotting bombings.
or flash forward to republican president. there is no statute of limitations on treason. dead marxist walking.
Whose drones? POTUS' or Bill Ayers'?
I'm waiting for Bill Ayers' statement. I think it would be very illuminating to hear from a terrorism plotting and bomb making member of the Weather Underground. But I imagine he is very busy writing the sequal to "Dreams of My Father". I can wait.
"I mean, are you now asking what exact momement the drone strike should be allowed in this hypothetical down to the minute?"
-- Gee, it's almost like being in charge requires one to make hard decisions.
I think Sen. Johnson's job was to talk long enough for Sen. Paul to get a serious bathroom break.
That's the extent of this numbskull's worthiness.
If I recall right, I read sometime last fall that the President and his team were scrambling to draw up executive orders limiing a new Presidents use of drones. Does anyone else remember that? Interesting they only trust themselves.
"There's no discussion of extraordinary circumstances in Rand Pauls retort."
There's no "extraordinary circumstances" allowance in the Constitution for violation of due process.
This is part of the point: in times of crisis and duress, the tendency will always be to go beyond the norms of behavior, to expand or break the boundaries circumscribing behavior that is permitted to the state. The Constitution is the wall that stops such tendencies.
If we, as a society, we wish to change the parameters of behavior permitted to the state under extraordinary circumstances, we must amend the Constitution. We may not do it ad hoc.
"Senator Paul must be far less concerned about treason than about our civil rights. Somehow, I always thought that treason was a most despicable crime that needed resolution but neither Fonda, Kerry nor any of the Winter Soldier bunch were so charged or investigated."
Treason is far less important than our civil rights. The former is the act of an individual or group of individuals and is a criminal matter; the latter guarantee the freedoms of every American.
The Winter Soldiers were telling the truth, which, in a tyranny, is understandably considered treason. A new book just out by Nick Turse, "Kill Anything That Moves," is an in-depth investigation of the plethora of atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam.
I think Sen. Johnson's job was to talk long enough for Sen. Paul to get a serious bathroom break.
That's the extent of this numbskull's worthiness.
As asked above, gm, where's Baldwin?? Conspicuously absent.
I know you can't help your reflexive kick at Johnson, but he's the guy out there who's actually in line with your own position on the subject and representing your interests. Look past your partisan line long enough to give credit where it's due.
garage mahal said...
You elected a dictator. Say it loud and proud, man.
There was zero daylight between Romney and Obama on this issue. I highly doubt you would be calling Romney a dictator.
So I take it you disagree with Obama then? I've never heard you talk about this, ever.
Let me tell you something Bitch Tit McFatboy. If Romney even proposed doing this I'd protest him for even thinking it. Does that bring Romney to the level of faux dictatorship that Obama has been operating under? Well, Romney isn't he president, so your moral comparative is, as always, as absurd as you are. Carry on with the eating, tubby.
Holder kept using the term "not appropriate", when asked if it would be "not constitutional". If you really REALLY can't see the difference, then get off the internet and go get some help.
I've been thinking of Holder as a slippery weasel who knew full well what the question was, and did not want to answer it.
But it's possible that he was genuinely confused by the question. Which means he's not very bright.
Holder finally put out this letter, which made Rand Paul declare that he "kinda won my battle". I think so!
He also, the Times reported, may have opened a rift in the G.O.P., between executive-power skeptics and those who like Presidents having drones without much oversight. The paper quoted John McCain, who disapproved of a Paul analogy involving Jane Fonda, and Senator Lindsey Graham, who asked, “What are we up to here?”
Yeah, but that rift between the Tea Party and the RINOs has been going on for awhile. It's also opened up a rift on the liberal side! That's the New Yorker that is siding with Rand Paul and taking shots at Eric Holder, in case you didn't notice. Not every liberal is on board with C-4. Some of them are capable of moral embarrassment.
Robert Cook alleges ...
The Winter Soldiers were telling the truth, which, in a tyranny, is understandably considered treason. A new book just out by Nick Turse, "Kill Anything That Moves," is an in-depth investigation of the plethora of atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam.
Ou, ah, ou ou ...war and gore and it's all true, TRUE I tell you!! A new book...oh, wow...NEW...it's just has to be true!! All of it....2.5 million murdering mother fuckers we all were, you god damn betcha!!
Written by a man who never wore a uniform, never had the pleasure of "incoming"....so yeah, mother fucker, ...both you Cook, and Turse tell me what you would do?
Simple question, all morality aside, just answer it:
You are in a dark place, half a world away frpom home, you are being fired at regularly, so WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Post a Comment