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.
पोस्ट्स
२४२ टिप्पण्या:
242 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Go Rand Go!!!!!!
Nice bipartisan effort with Ron Wyden (D-OR) among others.
Best line was when he said that Jane Fonda on the AA gun in North Vietnam (NEVER!!! forget)would have been droneworthy under Obama's definitions.
But then he said "I don't care much for Jane Fonda but I don't think she should be killed extra judicially" (Quote from memory)
I was a big Ron Paul fan. I am liking Rand even better.
John Henry
I Stand With Rand
Also, nice touch by Cruz reading the Alamo letter, and getting the weasel Holder to finally answer a straight-forward question.
Starting to be proud to be an American again. Heh.
I disagree about the Constitution.
The President as commander in chief has the power to drone anybody.
Congress has the power to impeach and remove if it thinks the particular case was an abuse of power.
Both accord with the Constitution.
The particular case where droning an American on American soil that would not result in impeachment is not easy to think up, but the possibility is Constitutional.
Isn't there an "independent" Senator from Vermont who used to get all weepy about this kind of stuff?
"...Best line was when he said that Jane Fonda on the AA gun in North Vietnam (NEVER!!! forget)would have been droneworthy under Obama's definitions....."
I'd be for that..aid and comfort to an enemy during armed conflict.
Very few people like Rand Paul who still believe in the Constitution.
Wish him all the best.
James Taranto called BS on Paul in today's Best of the Web. Worth a read before you write something silly.
Incredible that there's even one American that will allow the sort of unchecked power that BO has claimed. Amazing that when they claim it's ok because, of course, they'll never abuse the power that they're not arrested before they complete their excuses.
Amazing and embarrassing. Humiliating.
I'm watching to learn if there are more than a couple of vertibrates left in the Senate.
I expect Rand Paul to cave, just like he did for Hagel....the guy who in his book cited not fleeing the draft for Vietnam as "volunteering"...e.g., equivalent to "enlisting." A perfect Obama weasel word fit....especially when he asserts his draft board advised him to not "volunteer." Oh, please...just fucking please.
I have deep respect for Hagel's RVN service, where he earned a CIB. That's more than I accomplished. But ... He's too stupid to know that is enough, no need to embellish. Yet...He certainly is more fit that John (I've got the hat) Kerry. Be grateful for small favors perhaps.
It is easy to disapprove of John Brenna initially...simply because he's a reincarnation of Robert "Blowtorch Bob" Komer of LBJ and Nixon days (MACV-SOG-CORDS-Phoenix-etc....). Once a sufficient "show" is made...ka-boom, the Republicans will approve the Brennan nomination as head spook....just like they did Hagel for Defense, including R Paul, Rand not Ru. I think.
The President as commander in chief has the power to drone anybody.
What about the little matter of due process, rh?
I wonder after all of this verbal bravado, Rand Paul will vote to put Brennan into the CIA like he did with Hagel, because after all with the sound and fury, the senate is just there to advice and consent. However, in principal I stand with Paul and Cruz, but it will amount to only so much chest puffing. Sad.
I was surprised to see the Taranto criticism. I think Paul is doing the right thing, even if he finally lets it go forward. He voted for Hagel on the principle that even a stupid ex-Senator who is the president's choice should be permitted. Brennan is another issue.
I can see the Admin's argument, say a 9/11 situation where it's impossible it effect arrest, but it's bizarre to me that the same people making this argument wouldn't concede an inch when it comes to torture in the same situation. Apparently you can outright kill a guy to prevent him from carrying out a terrorist attack, but you can't water board him to prevent the same,
I can see the Admin's argument, say a 9/11 situation where it's impossible it effect arrest, but it's bizarre to me that the same people making this argument wouldn't concede an inch when it comes to torture in the same situation. Apparently you can outright kill a guy to prevent him from carrying out a terrorist attack, but you can't water board him to prevent the same,
Ten quotes from his filibuster:
http://twitter.com/paxdickinson/status/309416708353970177
Also:
"Mr. President, are you going to have 'Terrorist Tuesdays' for Americans? Are you going to put up and pass them around the table in the Oval Office, with pictures of Americans on them, and decide who's going to die and who's going to live?"
"Has America the Beautiful become Alice's Wonderland? Sentence first, verdict afterwards."
http://twitter.com/BadgerPundit/status/309423349996605440
We need "an answer from the President" -- for him to "say explicitly that non-combatants in America won't be killed with drones."
http://twitter.com/BadgerPundit/status/309430123877236737
Can the President "say he's going to secretly accuse you of a crime, and that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to you?"
http://twitter.com/BadgerPundit/status/309438248021803009
"It's a little late after the drone strike for the person to say, 'I didn't really mean what I said in that e-mail.'"
http://twitter.com/BadgerPundit/status/309437377926033408
:The particular case where droning an American on American soil that would not result in impeachment is not easy to think up,..."
Yes it is - the first Black President and a Democrat. He could drone the Supreme Court if he wants to, and still finish his term.
A little grandstanding never droned anybody.
Holder says it is OK to 'drone' an American on American soil.. I find the lack of reaction to it let alone outrage from the media and the general public astonishing. It is like saying it is OK to have military tanks on our streets and shoot at people. But nobody is alarmed. Good for Rand Paul. May be people will wake up now.
The President as commander in chief has the power to drone anybody. Congress has the power to impeach and remove if it thinks the particular case was an abuse of power.
Obviously the President has the *power* to have people assassinated. The relevant questions are whether he has Constitutional authority to do so, and (if so) under what conditions.
If the President has the Constitutional authority to have people assassinated then Congress does NOT have the Constitutional authority to impeach him for doing so. Congress only has the authority to impeach Presidents for criminal actions.
Anyway, I'm with Rand Paul and most other libertarian types; the idea that the Constitution includes a "the President can kill anyone he wants, wherever he wants, without consulting the other branches of government" clause is silly.
Funny how nothing would benefit this Administration as much as having a great many of its top level people droned.
And, yes, i'm a big fan of Rand Paul.
During the 60s, if you were drafted, you only did two years. If you volunteered you got four. I volunteered for the Air Force because I figured that four years in the Air Force was better than two years in the Army. I still think I was right. I spent 24 years in the Air Force.
If only Matt Dillon could have had drones back in Dodge City then he would have never needed a "Posse Comitatus" or something like that there.
Plus Festus would have shaved or he would have got a drone up his keister!
They keep this up and the NRA will have enough members to elect their own Drone King.
James Taranto called BS on Paul in today's Best of the Web. Worth a read before you write something silly.
Taranto missed the point, which is a shame; he's normally smarter than that.
The problem is that Holder did NOT say something to the effect of "we can only kill people without trial on American soil if that's the only way to save lives", or words to that effect. Like Paul pointed out, nobody was ever disputing that -- use of force in immediate defense of the lives of others is a normal police power.
If you read Holder's actual reply, you will see that while he (uselessly) identified 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as two examples of when the President could kill without trial, he refused to define, or even acknowledge the existence of, the limits on this Presidential power.
*That* is the problem Paul, and others, have with the Obama administration's position. If Obama and/or Holder want to come out and say "the President may only kill Americans on US soil if there is no other way to prevent innocent deaths, now would be a good time for him to do that. That he hasn't says something, yes?
I remember a terrible shoot-out here in L.A. (one of many) that the two guys were running WILD in the streets shooting anything that moved or driving with complete disregard for public safety. A drone may have ended that obvious situation sooner than later. And they were citizens I believe.
Hey Baron, have you noticed that our off topic comments don't get deleted. We must both be very good looking.
"I still think I was right. I spent 24 years in the Air Force."
I was in the Air Force from Dec. 12, 1962 until Dec. 09, 1966, I got out a couple of days early because my normal date of separation fell on a weekend. It was fifty years ago this past Dec. when I joined the Air Force.
To the good people of Kentucky who sent Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul to the US Senate, thank you. Thank you very much.
Massachusetts, you suck.
...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.”
That would be unusual--to be tried, convicted, and then executed by drone. I picture the convicted standing out in a field and the executioner flying the drone with a little RC controller. Pew pew pew.
Anywhoooo.
Paul got the publicity he wanted. Now everyone's like, "Hey, wait, what? Drones? The president is killing Americans? The attorney general says it okay? Why wasn't I aware of this?"
Then they all glance at their newspapers and have a hearty laugh. "Ha ha ha. Oh yeah--the 'objective press.' Ha! ha! ha!"
Senator Strom Thurmond (search) talked against a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
Does Ran Paul have it in him?
I say he can break it.
So the Obama voters elected a dictator.
Who would have guessed that?
I mean, besides all the wingnuts here.
Rev: "-- use of force in immediate defense of the lives of others is a normal police power."
Balto: "I remember a terrible shoot-out here in L.A. (one of many) that the two guys were running WILD in the streets shooting anything that moved or driving with complete disregard for public safety. A drone may have ended that obvious situation sooner than later. And they were citizens I believe."
And?
I don't think that the President is allowed to put someone's name on a list of "people a sniper may shoot" either.
The president can kill innocent citizens by the hundreds if deemed necessary, as was ordered and attempted by the scrambled fighters chasing flight 93. The question is only a question if imminent attack is not at issue, in which case it clearly is not acceptable for an American President.
For a 9/11 type situation any President worth his salt would have acted to prevent it, Constitutional or not, and the example of the Civil War involves insurrection, which I believe is mentioned in the Consttution.
What Paul was asking Holder really was if Holder believes there is any restraints on the President's power to kill, and it was very hard to get Holder to admit that there are any.
And that is disturbing, especially with this Chicago gang holding the White House.
Mike Lee is talking now, but Rand has managed to stick to the subject and is still making excellent points. I am coming to admire the man immensely (although I'm also telling myself to watch it - he is a politician, after all.)
The brilliance of taking a stand on this particular issue is that not only conservative Tea Partiers support him - so do the ACLU and Code Pink.
So he's not only solidifying conservative, Tea Party support, he's making a dent in Obama's base as well.
Beautiful. No wonder Reid tried to shut him up earlier this evening.
I can't help but wonder: does he get bathroom breaks? If not,is he wearing a catheter? Depends? And were the chocolates and cough drops someone gave him a while ago actually chocolates and cough drops, or a few bennies?
"If you read Holder's actual reply, you will see that while he (uselessly) identified 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as two examples of when the President could kill without trial, he refused to define, or even acknowledge the existence of, the limits on this Presidential power."
Well, he did say it would be "inappropriate" for Obama to off people who stand in his way.
Has anyone in the government stated that they believed that it is acceptable for drones to kill an American citizen on American soil? Don Quixote?
What is wrong with you people?
He's not using a teleprompter.....is he.
There is no politician I admire more. (This is not saying much.) My worst fear is my conjecture about the Senate - that every member of the Senate gets dumber every year. I hope he is a counterexample. I hope to be able to vote for him for president. I fear that all my hopes will be dashed, and the country will continue to sink into the muck.
Anyone care to weigh in on the killing of al-awlaki? That is fucked up in its own right. yeah or neigh?
Its not droning... its a penalty.
I was amused a few hours ago when C-SPAN 2 changed the bottom bar from "Possible this evening: vote on John Brennan nomination" to "Possible tomorrow: vote on John Brennan nomination"
And now, it doesn't even say that!
Not nearly as good Bernie Sander's talking filibuster, but kudos to Paul.
Just think: one Republican could turn around so many other Republicans on drone warfare and extra judicial killings!
Anyone care to weigh in on the killing of al-awlaki?
He should have been arrested and charged with treason and tried in court. But Obama likes his kill lists and silent killings. There seems to be perverse satisfaction in that decision that is highly disturbing.
Ever notice how liberal power grabs are telegraphed.
ie "I am not a dictator."
Using drones against American citizens in America would be "inappropriate."
You're right Garage, and he might turn some Democrats too!
In Thinking about what rh says...
I don't think a president can say he cant do something... unless hes talking about not being able to fuel a carrier because of budget cuts.
I was just thinking, an industrious chap could make a mint in this country by marketing drone killers.
There may be a problem with the laser targeting, but I'm imagining a whole line from beginner fun kits to seriously minded privacy protection.
"Just think: one Republican could turn around so many other Republicans on drone warfare and extra judicial killings!"
Libertarian, for what it's worth.
But it's going to have to be Republicans, isn't it. Because Democrats will never drop the financial part of the government power equation and decide that government doesn't/shouldn't have the power to steal from me to give to you.
Democrats better hurry and stand beside Paul... otherwise they're screwed when it comes to complaining about the next Republican President that uses drones.
Suddenly, due process and equal protection have found favor again.
When does a human life acquire the unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?
Obama originally denied that right from conception to some time after birth. He has since progressed to deny the right of survivors.
We are viable targets from conception to grave.
Well, men and women hoped and dreamed of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification; but, as with all compromises which denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life, there are consequences.
Greedy bastards. They placed their love of money, pleasure, and self-esteem before everything enduring.
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...
===============
Stupid libertarian asshole.
Ideals meet reality when an US Citizen muslim hijacks an airliner and puts it on course to smack into Miami.
Whether or not the Muslim Americans "precious due process rights" are violated by a pilot in a jet or a pilot operating a remote drone is of no matter to me.
And when a US citizen Islamoid or other traitor is operating within a country where fucking Rand Pauls sacred criminal justice system can't reach or arrest him and he doesn't turn himself in upon hearing a Sacred Warrant prepared by a lawyer dressed in robes...and he is plotting, or already has participated in violence against non-Muslim Americans....it is right and just to whack the motherfucker.
Ace posted this: "But maybe this isn't just a pose -- maybe Barack Obama really believes that American citizens don't have greater rights than foreign combatants on foreign shores.
If so, we might need to discuss that conceit."
I think it's true. There are two sides to the insistence that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens and that foreign combatants have the same rights as domestic non-combatants. If you've come to believe that, for whatever reason, it has to be reciprocal, it has to go both ways.
If Obama (and his legal and constitutional advisors and appointees) don't think of citizenship as conferring special constitutional protections and benefits, then if they've decided that extra-judicial killings and "kill lists" and what-not are acceptable, then where's the end of it?
Legendary filibusters:
Robert La Follette, 1908
The Republican, a leading Progressive of the era, spoke for 18 hours, setting a Senate record. He stood against a banking bill, which he found too friendly to big business. At the eleventh hour, according to historian Lewis L. Gould, a colleague brought the vegetarian La Follette a mixture of milk and eggs for sustenance. La Follette took a sip and then shouted, “Take it away, it’s drugged.” “The brew was indeed undrinkable,” Gould writes in his Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate, “but it had gone bad because of the heat of the Senate in the days before air conditioning and the long trip from the kitchen where the drink had been prepared.” The bill passed and became the basis for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
On the other hand, garage, you elected a dictator.
"Ideals meet reality when an US Citizen muslim hijacks an airliner and puts it on course to smack into Miami."
And again... normal police power to stop someone in the act. What is so hard to understand?
It's the difference between police killing an active shooter and the police chief having a hit list and killing people without trial.
The question is only a question if imminent attack is not at issue, in which case it clearly is not acceptable for an American President.
It needs to be absoloutely clear - the POTUS should NOT have the power to kill a American on American soil who is not engaged in combat or an IMMEDIATE threat (ie about to fly a plane into the pentagon). To say, well, we won't use this power is not enough.
I dont think I've ever heard a congressman/woman say the congress cant do something...
The Supremes say that a lot, but thats because they think they are being humble or something.
But my question is can a president say he cant do something and then hold true the oath to defend and protect... to me "protect" includes proactive, preemptive action against all enemies foreign and domestic.
It may not be politically expedient for a president to say he has the power to kill an American citizen w/o due process... but a president cant predict a circumstance where it would be safe to say "I wont do this or that" and still be true to the oath.
Synova, Obama doesn't think that way. He is not concerned with differential protection of rights for different cohorts. If it works for him, he will support it. If not, no. It's all about power.
On the other hand, garage, you elected a dictator.
The problem isn't necessarily drones, that's just hardware. Who gave the President these powers in the first place?
Anyways I missed your thoughts on the issue. Do you have any?
Synova said...
There are two sides to the insistence that non-citizens have the same rights as citizens and that foreign combatants have the same rights as domestic non-combatants. If you've come to believe that, for whatever reason, it has to be reciprocal, it has to go both ways.
If Obama (and his legal and constitutional advisors and appointees) don't think of citizenship as conferring special constitutional protections and benefits, then if they've decided that extra-judicial killings and "kill lists" and what-not are acceptable, then where's the end of it?
Keep in mind, this is the guy who goes all wee-wee over the idea of the US taking the surrender of Japan on the fantail of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Clearly, Mommy the Commie put the idea in his head the country needs to be taken down a peg.
I smell a second Nobel Peace Prize.
Do they smell like death?
dcm said...
Anyone care to weigh in on the killing of al-awlaki? That is fucked up in its own right. yeah or neigh?
I'm of two minds on Al-Awlaki. He had already declared and denounced the US and fought against her as a citizen siding with the declared enemy. He was still a citizen, but he was on foreign soil. If he was caught in the open during a hostile action and was killed, I wouldn't blink an eye. But the fact that Urkel made a kill list that did this to him, I have a slight problem with because he was a citizen as grotesque as that is to me, however, I'm in no way sad that he is gone.
Go ahead, garage, take a bow.
You elected a dictator. Say it loud and proud, man.
Thoughts, none that matter, because we now have a dictator.
Take the hippocratic oath...
First do no harm... right?
But, for anyone who's been on an operating table... first do no harm is out the window... and something akin to doing whatever it takes to make the patient better starts to control.
Right?
"But the fact that Urkel made a kill list that did this to him, I have a slight problem with because he was a citizen as grotesque as that is to me, however, I'm in no way sad that he is gone."
I thought, felt, still feel, that the fact of his citizenship should have kept him off a list *until* he'd had a trial in the US to justify it. Maybe there's not a "due process" in place because the situation doesn't come up often but he should have gotten the due process first.
LilyBart said...
The question is only a question if imminent attack is not at issue, in which case it clearly is not acceptable for an American President.
It needs to be absoloutely clear - the POTUS should NOT have the power to kill a American on American soil who is not engaged in combat or an IMMEDIATE threat (ie about to fly a plane into the pentagon). To say, well, we won't use this power is not enough.
I would have that at the minimum that the Posse Comitatus act would have prevented such an action to begin with and without congressional authorization. If there is imminent threat, that some level of probable cause would enact congress to issue such an action for the president to carry out and have it be made public and signed by people in that authoritative capacity. Why are we even talking about this at all however, if it wasn't for Urkel's stance that he can do anything he wants until he is challenged on it and he will do it anyway. You can see this on how Holder has made it in his policy speech. The fact that Urkel wants this power means that he's already legitimized it somewhere if it hasn't already been used. He needs to be stopped and now.
I mean... dont get me wrong.. the idea that a president has unchecked powers is not something to take comfort over.
I dont know that he does... nor should.
It is good that Ran is raising these questions.
The President as commander in chief has the power to drone anybody.
Congress has the power to impeach and remove if it thinks the particular case was an abuse of power.
Both accord with the Constitution.
I tend to agree with this. It IS in the presidents power to use a drone strike, even domestically. Just as he has the power to waterboard people. The question is should he, and when?
I can't think of too many reasons why a president would ever use a drone strike against a domestic target, except, what if there were a ticking time bomb scenario requiring a drone strike on a domestic target.
Lets not forget that during 9/11 after we realized that we were under attack planes were sent out to shoot the last of the hijacked planes out of the sky!
Think about that. We would be blowing up American citizens on a domestic pane in America.
Who would argue taht we COULDN"T or SHOULDN"T do that when to not do that woudl mean this plane would crash into a target like the pentagon. Flight 993 crashed before jets were ever able to reach the plane, but what if they had reached it? Would Rand suggest that we should just let it proceed onto its target?
Extreme circumstances might actually call for us to use a drone strike domestically.And just as the president can declare a war, so to can he authorize a drone strike.
As noble as Rand Paul's fight is on this, he's actually wrong.
Now, that being said, even if he has the power to do so, a president should be held accountable for doing so. It better be a really good reason. ANd not simply used to target opponents of the administration. etc.
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.
C'mon C4 -- that has already been discussed. And found wanting.
You reading upline at all?
If someone is pointing a gun at my daughter I have the right to take him out.
"Do they smell like death?"
Apparently, they smell like napalm in the morning.
I don't recall a drone kill list post here before, but I may have missed it.
Synova wrote:
I thought, felt, still feel, that the fact of his citizenship should have kept him off a list *until* he'd had a trial in the US to justify it. Maybe there's not a "due process" in place because the situation doesn't come up often but he should have gotten the due process first.
Realistically though we are talking about a target that we may have one shot at and not be able to get people to him to arrest him. The ideas that we should do a reverse Saving Private Ryan (ie send in the troops track him through a battlefield and then read him his miranda rights) is ludicrously stupid. This was what the left was suggesting should be done in the war. And righties like me were laughing at the suggestion.
Suddenly the libertarians are arguing the same thing?
Say we had the bead on OBL and were about to drone strike him out of existence, but then we find out that Adam Gaddhan is in the same building and might die in the blast. ANd he's an american citizen.
That mere fact should prevent us from targeting OBL with a drone strike?
THat borders on farcical.
The problem isn't necessarily drones, that's just hardware. Who gave the President these powers in the first place?
It happened piecemeal over the last century or so.
One of the many nasty side effects of giving the federal government ever-increasing power, really.
Just think: one Republican could turn around so many other Republicans on drone warfare and extra judicial killings!
Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with Obama ordering over six times the number of strikes as Bush did in eight years and killing hundreds of innocent civilians including women and children
What's it take to turn around a bunch of dimwitted, blind Democrats?
I don't recall a drone kill list post here before..
That's because the sequester trimmed it to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Cruz is hitting it out of the park.
How long I have yearned to hear such things so clearly reaffirmed by the Senators.
You can feel the power of the original principals.
DADvocate wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with Obama ordering over six times the number of strikes as Bush did in eight years and killing hundreds of innocent civilians including women and children
But this strikes me as a variation on the argument made by libs on MSNBC that they are ok with Obama's drone strikes because they trust Obama and don't trust Bush.
Either he has the power to do something or he doesn't, whether we trust him or not.
You're essentially saying you don't trust Obama with this. Did you trust Bush?
Obama has the power to drone strike. Congress has the power to attempt to hold him accountable.THe media, as they did with George Bush can attempt to hold him accountable.
Cruising for Cruz.
Agreed, Quayle. RAND-CRUZ 2016.
Hmm...Libertarian Rand Paul over here...Fascist Jew hating blog commenter over here. So hard to choose...
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...
Can a non American be killed by a drone strike on american soil without a trial? What if, next to him is an American working with him? What if they're on a plane filled with other Americans.
Is this objection limited ONLY to drone strikes, but not say, a bomber blowing a plane out of the sky?
Principally I agree that under ordinary circumstances no american should be blown up without a trial. Absolutely. But there are circumstances that fall outside of the norm (like say 9/11) where all this goes out the window.
I don’t trust Rand Paul.
I think that he’s actually an isolationist like his father and that he’d like us to pack up completely and come home, and that he believes the war on terror is in some sense a sham because the Islamists are reacting to how cruelly we’ve treated Muslims.
Do you know, for instance, that he’s also against the indefinite detention of enemy combatants because he considers that to be a deprivation of due process, as well?
Say we had the bead on OBL and were about to drone strike him out of existence, but then we find out that Adam Gaddhan is in the same building and might die in the blast. ANd he's an american citizen.
As the person arguing it is OK to kill Americans in order to get at bin Laden, doesn't it fall to you to explain the kind and number of Americans it *isn't* ok to kill?
For example, would it "border on farcical" to say that killing *you* in order to kill bin Laden would be wrong? How about "your entire family and friends"?
In the unlikely event that you're able to actually articulate an adequate response to that question, congrats -- you'll have managed more than anyone in the Obama or Bush administrations. :)
Historic, etc. but what is going on with his hair? That shit needs some work. It's like pubes on his head.
He needs an extreme makeover with someone more professional than some queen from Frankfort.
That pube head has got to go. And the dyed/vrs not dyed divide is overwhelming. Blend bitch, blend!!!!
Still love him to death.
Do you think any of the Supremes are watching?
I can't believe this administration can't come out and say that it is unconstitutional to deprive a US citizen life without due process of law
Fascist Jew hating blog commenter over here.
I hate to agree with Cederford on this (not the fascism and jew hating of course) but he has a point.
As a libertarian how would you handle flight 93? We know it's going to crash into a target. Would you send out fighter jets to destroy the plane before it can hit its target even though you know it will involve killing Americans on the plane, or would you let the plane hit its intended target.
That is not an outlandish hypothetical. That almost was how it happened on 9/11. But for the fact that fighter jets couldn't reach flight 93 in time.
THe only real course of action there would be to blow the plane out of the sky. I say this with the knowledge that I would be agreeing with the killing of Americans.
Sometimes reality intercepts with these principles and reality wins. It doesn't mean that the principles are wrong, but that there is an exception to all rules.
Say we had the bead on OBL and were about to drone strike him out of existence, but then we find out that Adam Gaddhan is in the same building and might die in the blast. ANd he's an american citizen.
That mere fact should prevent us from targeting OBL with a drone strike?
THat borders on farcical.
It also telegraphs to an enemy already fond of hiding behind women and children that all you need do is add an American in your entourage and you're immune to attack.
Revenant wrote:
For example, would it "border on farcical" to say that killing *you* in order to kill bin Laden would be wrong? How about "your entire family and friends"?
MY flight 93 hypothetical still stands. What if it was YOUR family on flight 93? It was certainly someone's.
Revenant wrote:
As the person arguing it is OK to kill Americans in order to get at bin Laden, doesn't it fall to you to explain the kind and number of Americans it *isn't* ok to kill?
For example, would it "border on farcical" to say that killing *you* in order to kill bin Laden would be wrong? How about "your entire family and friends"?
I don't know. Why would my entire family and friends be in the same compound as OBL?
And I said it was farcical to think that we can go, in a time of war in the middle of a battlefield and act like cops giving people their Miranda rights. That was in terms of treating enemy combatants as if they were criminals in NYC. That's ludicrous.
Now, we have an individual, a single American in amongst the jihadis. SHould they get a get out of drone strikes free card if they have a single American in their party? Again, that's ludicrous.
What's it take to turn around a bunch of dimwitted, blind Democrats?
Both parties gave the executive branch way too much power on the "war on terror". AUMF, FISA, War Powers Resolution. Will Congress reassert its authority? I wouldn't hold your breath.
You're essentially saying you don't trust Obama with this. Did you trust Bush?
I have little trust for any politician. I trust Obama not at all because of his lack of ethics, lack of morals, lack of respect for the rights of others and general ignorance. Bush wasn't a whole lot better. The Patriot Act and the TSA never should have been. He misjudged Afghanistan and Iraq.
Rand Paul is certainly one of the most trustworthy politicians in Washington.
Now, if my family were hostages of Bin Laden and he kept them there as human shields a drone strike may not be the best course of action. But would I rule it out in all circumstances? I can't argue that. Perhaps a drone strike is the only way to deal with the thraet even if it means taking out the hostages. It woudlnt' be the first resort, but it might be the ONLY resort. Even if it's my family.
JR:
As you say, the flight 93 question is not hypothetical. Either President Bush himself (I wasn't a fan) or Cheney addressed this: the jets were scrambled and they were prepared to shoot down the plane.
No one, that I recall, said this violated the Constitution. The issue is not, never has been, whether the President can use lethal force, apart from due process, against those engaged in war or insurrection. This includes citizens.
I'll say it again: no one disputes this. This is not what Mr. Paul is filibustering about.
The issue is, what about people who aren't engaged in war or insurrection--and where do you draw the line?
As Senator Ron Wyden said:
“Every American deserves to know when the government thinks it has the right to kill them."
Why won't the President and his Administration answer the question?
I hate to agree with Cederford on this (not the fascism and jew hating of course) but he has a point.
If either you or Cedarford had bothered to actually listen to your opponents' arguments before spouting off, you'd know that Paul himself cited the 9/11 attacks as an example of a case when the President could legitimately order lethal force to be used.
Nobody is disputing that police and/or the military can use lethal force to prevent the imminent death of innocents. This is about the circumstances under which a President may NOT kill someone without trial -- more specifically, about Obama's unwillingness to admit that such circumstances exist.
Sometimes the cops have to shoot the kidnappers even if they are using a hostage as a shield. Sometimes the hostage gets a bullet to the noggin'. But sometimes that's the only course of action.
Its not ideal and noone should be happy about it. But circumstances might in rare cases warrant the use of lethal force that leads to an innocent person getting killed.
And in the case of an Adam Gadhan, a non innocent person.
Both parties gave the executive branch way too much power on the "war on terror". AUMF, FISA, War Powers Resolution. Will Congress reassert its authority? I wouldn't hold your breath.
I'm with you there. The problem of Congress not asserting it's authority is what has enabled presidents to increasingly abuse power. Both parties need to get over being afraid to attack presidents of the same party and defend the Constitution.
MY flight 93 hypothetical still stands.
Your flight 93 hypothetical was answered long before you got around to posing it.
Now, answer my question. Killing OBL saved no American lives; we killed him for revenge. How many members of your family can a President kill to get revenge on a terrorist? Just one, or is more allowable?
This Ted Cruz guy is pretty good. He is on right now on C-SPAN.
"If either you or Cedarford had bothered to actually listen to your opponents' arguments before spouting off, you'd know that Paul himself cited the 9/11 attacks as an example of a case when the President could legitimately order lethal force to be used.
Nobody is disputing that police and/or the military can use lethal force to prevent the imminent death of innocents. This is about the circumstances under which a President may NOT kill someone without trial -- more specifically, about Obama's unwillingness to admit that such circumstances exist."
Well then, would 9/11 justify the president to use drone strikes on American soil and potentially involving killing American citizens?
If Rand Paul is saying that 9/11 would warrant the president to use deadly force, then he's already answered his own hypothetical when it came to drone strike. Yes, he would.
Not yet mentioned here is the proximate cause of the evolution of Presidential powers that Revenant, above, alludes to. The ans is the technology of nuclear weapons. It has long been held since somewhere in the mid 50s that the response time to any nuclear attack by ICBMs was 20 min or so and even less for sumbarine SLBMs (10 min) that, withoput any formal authorization from Congress of which I am aware, it somehow became axiomatic--with the approval of all concerned--that the President, and the President alone because of time considerations would effectively commit this nation to nuclear war strictly on his own hook, as it were. From this generally agreed upon assumption has flowed all sorts
of power to the Office of the Presidency bleeding over into all manner of subjects. Absolute power, once centralized and institutionalized, is hard to corral across the entire range of governmental activities...especially once the general public comes to accept the primacy of the Presidency above all as the most legitmate source of power and action..
And in the case of an Adam Gadhan, a non innocent person.
So you say. We actually have a procedure in this country for determining non-innocence, and it is a bit more complicated than "the President claims you're guilty". :)
Revenant wrote:
Now, answer my question. Killing OBL saved no American lives; we killed him for revenge. How many members of your family can a President kill to get revenge on a terrorist? Just one, or is more allowable?
You answer my flight 93 hypothetical. You. Right now.
I think you'll find that it would involve killing AMericans on american soil. If you would say that in those limited cases you would agree with shooting a plane down that had American citizens in it then you are ok with killing Americans on American soil (in rare cases). BUt maybe you think we woudn't be justified in shooting the plane out of the sky. Please give me a reason why not.
What do we want?
Ran Power!!!
When do we want it?
2016...
@Revenant:Now, answer my question. Killing OBL saved no American lives; we killed him for revenge. How many members of your family can a President kill to get revenge on a terrorist? Just one, or is more allowable?
It's not about killing, Revenant. it's about TARGETING for killing, and in cold blood.
If OBL had an American hidden--let's say Bill Jenkins from Omaha-- under his bed as insurance, it's not relevant. Bill Jenkins is not the target.
But if Bill Jenkins is placed on a kill list, because Bin Ladin likes to keep him around, and then is blasted by a drone when he's alone at the Islamabad Kwik-E-Mart, THAT's what Rand Paul is against.
JAL said...
C'mon C4 -- that has already been discussed. And found wanting.
You reading upline at all?
If someone is pointing a gun at my daughter I have the right to take him out
==================
No, as Commander in Chief, Obama heads a military that not only as the Right to use lethal force on someone that is an immenent threat to someone.... but a threat that can be shot in the back even if retreating, or sleeping in enemy soldiers barracks - oblivious when the 1st cluster bombs fall. Dead or maimed afterwards.
Abraham Lincoln pretty well set the standards. Use of force against an enemy that only wanted to be left alone...an enemy he declared, along with what was left of Congress up North ...had no right to leave the Union, because they were US Citizens.
As he and the people under him killed 300,000 US citizens and drafted another 200,000 to die trying to kill them in the South...Lincoln weighed many conflicting phrases and clauses of the Constitution and always came back to the Preamble.
He could not keep is oath to the whole by slavish obedience to a small part..especially when that blind obedience to threatened the whole of the American nation.
Not just Lincoln - other Presidents have faced circumstances where US Citizens can be rightfully killed even if they pose no immenent threat - not in war even - but in those certain circumstances where lethal force is used when arrest is impractical.
OK to shoot looters in a riot. Governors as CIC of their Guard, or the President...TDR in dispatching Federal Troops to SF after the earthquake with shoot to kill orders. They have that power. And that power is executive, not for courts and legislatures to bound up in law and limit.
No due process in civilian court. OK to have George Washington declare Shays Rebellion participants would be shot after summary court martial or military tribunal.
Prisons are green-lighted to shoot unarmed escaping convicted US citizens in the back. No fucking due process with squads of lawyers debating.
And the US public likes that and backs those calls up.
The threat does not have to be proximate.
If they go too far, they are answerable to voters.
Well then, would 9/11 justify the president to use drone strikes on American soil and potentially involving killing American citizens?
Drone strikes on what? The planes? Asked and answered.
Revenant wrote:
Now, answer my question. Killing OBL saved no American lives; we killed him for revenge. How many members of your family can a President kill to get revenge on a terrorist? Just one, or is more allowable?
That's just stupid. Seriously Rev. We're at WAR with Al Qaeda. And OBL is the leader of Al Qaeda. It's not revenge to kill and dismantle the organization of Al Qaeda. They have killed many Americans in the past, very often at the directive or with the funding of OBL. Now was he at that very moment about to shoot an American? Maybe one of the Seal team that was about to kill him. But that doesn't matter. He was a military target.
As to how many Americans the president can kill. Why are Americans in the same compound as OBL? ARe they working with him? Then they are targets too. I've seen the number of videos put out by Adam Gadhan where he expresses loyalty to Al Qaeda. Hes as much a target as the random muslim al qaeda dude we have no knowledge of. He's the same saboteur we would afford no rights to under Geneva since he is not wearing any uniform or fighting for any country. If Adam Gadhan's entire family was there also fighting with him alongside Al Qaeda, then they'd be targets too.
If they are there to try to bring him home and are captured by Al Qaeda, it would certainly be part of the consideration as to whether or not to use a drone strike or instead send in a SEAL team. But even if we sent in a seal team, we'd have to recognize that Americans might get killed in our attempt to rescue them.
Yep, we can't go messing up this good thing we have in America with too much "f***ing due process."
Funny. Reminds me of the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who thinks the U.S. would be swell if only it were run more like Red China.
Well then, would 9/11 justify the president to use drone strikes on American soil and potentially involving killing American citizens?
Well actually you didn't answer it. But are we saying a president can send out a bomber but not a drone strike? Lets not get hung up on the mechanism being discussed.
You answer my flight 93 hypothetical. You. Right now.
I addressed that hypothetical an hour and a half before you posed it. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you're too lazy to read. :)
When you've caught up on your reading, though, I'll be curious to hear how many of your loved ones you're willing to see dead for the warm fuzzies of knowing bin Laden's in Hell.
FR Martin Fox,
WHy don't YOU answer the hypothetical about the plane. Would you blow it out of the sky if it would prevent it from reaching its target. What abotu the due process right of the people on the plane?
It's not about killing, Revenant. it's about TARGETING for killing, and in cold blood.
I know that's what Paul's talking about. jr565 hasn't actually paid any attention to what Paul is saying, though, so he has posed hypotheticals of his own centering around collateral kills.
I'm responding to jr's hypothetical, that's all.
jr565, you are being a troll.
Go away.
Rev said. . . (Holder) refused to define, or even acknowledge the existence of, the limits on this Presidential power.
Holder's letter said. . . As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.
Holder concluded the letter by saying . . . Were such an emergency (Pearl Harbor or 9/11) to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.
So, first he describes the principles under which such action would be taken, and then he later acknowledges that the president has a "scope" on his authority. "Scope" and "limit" are not totally dissimilar words.
Ron Paul's response to this letter was to say on Fox News. . .
The thing about the drone strike program is we're not talking about someone's actively attacking America--we're not talking about planes flying into the World Trade Center. What we're talking about is you're eating dinner in your house, you're eating at a cafe or you're walking down the road.
Remember weeks ago when we all used to mock people who would deliberately misconstrue what their opponent had said in order to score political points?
JR:
If you prefer arguing with a straw man, that's your lookout, but you could save your fingers a lot of typing.
The issue is not whether the President can order military action to kill American citizens, here or abroad.
The issue is not particularly about which particular tool. Sen. Paul said, about an hour or so ago, that he took no issue with drones being one of the President's tools, per se.
The issue ish, where is the line drawn?
As Sen. Ron Wyden said, “Every American deserves to know when the government thinks it has the right to kill them."
If it's so easy a question to answer, let the President answer it.
JR:
I thought I answered it, when I said, earlier, that "no one disputes" that President Bush could have shot down Flight 93.
"No one" includes me.
Are you seriously not clear about that being my position, until this moment?
Rubio Time.
I think--I hope--Sen. Rubio is sleepy. His pop-culture quotes aren't helping.
Fr Martin Fox wrote:
If you prefer arguing with a straw man, that's your lookout, but you could save your fingers a lot of typing.
The issue is not whether the President can order military action to kill American citizens, here or abroad.
The issue is not particularly about which particular tool. Sen. Paul said, about an hour or so ago, that he took no issue with drones being one of the President's tools, per se.
The issue ish, where is the line drawn?
I'd imagine this is the exact type of discussion the Bush administration was having when it comes to what interrogation methods could be used and how to draw the line.
So, congrats libs, you now know how that feels.
However, youve acknowledged that htere is a line that can be drawn where a President can kill Americans, even on American soil that you'd agree with. SO where do YOU think the line should be?
jr565 said...
WHy don't YOU answer the hypothetical about the plane. Would you blow it out of the sky if it would prevent it from reaching its target. What abotu the due process right of the people on the plane?
Suppose that plane reached its target and blew up hundreds more? Who gets to live with the knowledge that they could have prevented more deaths?
wow, Rubio is winging it and it shows. I liked Ted Cruz's oratory better and surprised that Rubio can't hold his own. He is coming across as shallow (to me).
That's just stupid. Seriously Rev. We're at WAR with Al Qaeda.
And I, as President, say your family are al Qaeda affiliates. See how that easy that is? Now they can be killed without recourse. I suppose you might argue that I have no evidence that your family are al Qaeda affiliates, but how do you plan to prove I don't have that evidence? I don't have to show it to you.
See the problem yet? You claim Adam Gaddhan isn't innocent -- but as a matter of law he's as innocent as anyone in your family. Perhaps moreso, since for all I know some of your family members have actually been convicted of crimes. :)
Rubio is not presidential material... at least not yet.
Rubio can't hold his own. He is coming across as shallow (to me).
Rubio had better hope Paul gets knocked out of the 2016 primaries early, because if the two of them end up debating it ain't gonna be pretty.
JR:
I am amused you called me a "lib."
As to where the line should be drawn, I think some distinction needs to be specified between engaged in warfare vs. not. I'm not qualified to write it. But the act of doing this--in public, holding the President and government accountable--would be a big step forward.
Oh, and I was against Bush using torture.
"It's not about killing, Revenant. it's about TARGETING for killing, and in cold blood."
Those are all assertions that I woudn't necessarily agree with are happening, and are merely your opinion as to what is happening. I mean, what killing doesn't involve targeting your kill when it comes to a war? Would you be ok if they didn't target but just arbitrarily dropped bombs? And in cold blood?
We're talking about a war here. When the pilots dropped the bombs in WWII was that in cold blood?
The issue is can an American sometimes be a target in a war? I would say yes, if they are fighting against us. ANd if so, we can target them like we target any other enemy.
Obama is going to instruct Holder to respond soon... if he hasn't already.
If the Woodward confrontation showed anything, it showed an Obama obsessed with his image.
FR Martin wrote;
I am amused you called me a "lib."
As to where the line should be drawn, I think some distinction needs to be specified between engaged in warfare vs. not. I'm not qualified to write it. But the act of doing this--in public, holding the President and government accountable--would be a big step forward.
I know you're a libertarian. I remember our disagreement over not voting for Romney. I was actually referring to libs during BUsh's days. But I think some libertarians are veering awfully close to lib territory here
Thune talking. So new people are joining this tour de force. It is hilarious that there are no Dems there. Fucking hypocrites.
JR:
Actually, the most accurate label to slap on me is "Conservative"--except the term is misunderstood enough that I'm not sure it's so meaningful anymore. Meanwhile, with the Constitution in such a sad state, with government metastasizing, I can live with being lumped in with the Libertarians for the time being. I feel a lot safer with them, than I do with the two parties of big government currently in power.
PM317:
Actually, Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, has been part of the filibuster. I don't know of any other Dems being present, even to pose a question.
If they go too far, they are answerable to voters.
Or the impeachment process.
And I also find Rand Pauld language curious. Like he has this fetish about drones, but sees no issue with soldiers shooting a pack of black looters that poses no imminent threat to life, just property.
And I doubt Rand Paul will make any speeches about ending the right of guards to shoot an escaping convict in the back - because if successfully escaped, they may possibly pose a threat someday to the general public.
Nor any anticipated speeches by Rand against use of other aviation platforms. Combat jets, helos actually manned by the same sort of military officers flying drones and on orders, pushing the button on them... against enemy abroad, with or without US citizenship.
I am amused you called me a "lib."
As to where the line should be drawn, I think some distinction needs to be specified between engaged in warfare vs. not. I'm not qualified to write it. But the act of doing this--in public, holding the President and government accountable--would be a big step forward.
Engaged in warfare is the sticking point. As the War on Terror has shown, fighting war against terrorists may be part of an overarching campaign, but in many cases is an example of asymmetrical warfare. It's still a war.
In many cases, the issues of Americans who have been targeted were actually fighting overseas with other jihadists. I take it that Rand is not talking about these people.
SO then, what if we are talking about an American citizen who is working in a sleeper cell inside the US. Could I say i woulD NEVER EVER EVER authorize a drone strike against that person? No, because as was shown in 9/11 there are times when events overtake our principles and we have to make life or death choices.
Would I waterboard every jihadist I found for routine matters? No. But would I waterboard KSM the mastermind of 9/11 for info I know he would have to have (Being the mastermind of 9/11). Yes.
So, I'm talking about the exceptions to the rule.The extreme circumstances.
I'll agree that OBama or any president shouldn't use drone strikes on every day citizens just because.
Writ,
The problem lies here:
As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force
Holder isn't saying the President *can't* order the assassination of Americans in lieu of arresting them. Holder is saying the President has a *policy* of choosing arrest over assassination, where feasible.
So no, Holder is not acknowledging a limitation or scope to the President's power here. He's just describing the scope of the planned *use* of power -- a very different thing.
Sen. Paul just said, again, he has no issue with drones, per se, being used either in combat, or to defend the U.S.
The issue is non-combatants.
I had three friends named Rand, Paul, Phil, and a dog named Buster. I feel as if I already know this guy very well.
It is hilarious that there are no Dems there. Fucking hypocrites.
At least one Democratic senator joined in earlier.
Have you seen the reports of an Italian pilot seeing a drone next to him while on approach to Idlewild?
It is also going to be important for the U.S. Gov't to creditably deny responsibility for drone attacks which it has not ordered. I do not see how it does that with its drone assassination program cloaked in secret.
I can live with being lumped in with the Libertarians for the time being. I feel a lot safer with them, than I do with the two parties of big government currently in power.
Plus we're crazy in new and exciting ways instead of the old predictable two-party ways. :)
Thune talking. So new people are joining this tour de force. It is hilarious that there are no Dems there. Fucking hypocrites.
That is the true story. Shoe's on the other foot now. Suddenly dems are the ones defending the warmongering.
This though, from the republican perspective strikes me like Mccain arguing that you can never do anything outside of the army field manual when it comes to interrogation of high level targets.
Fuck, even Castle on the show Castle resorted to torture on the season finale when it came to getting his daughter back.And Castle's a nice guy.
Yet somehow, if lifes are on the line we can't do anything beyond the Army field manual when it comes to people who just destroyed the WTC and killed thousands of people and might do it again?
Plus we're crazy in new and exciting ways instead of the old predictable two-party ways. :)
Crazy is still crazy.
When the president does it, it is not illegal.
I knew I remember something relevant.
rhhardin: "The President as commander in chief has the power to drone anybody."
I'd be interested in knowing what, if anything, what the president in your opinion doesn't have the authority to do.
JR said:
"...even Castle on the show Castle resorted to torture on the season finale when it came to getting his daughter back. And Castle's a nice guy."
Seriously, that's your argument for torture?
Sen. McCain (not a fan) was right on torture. There are some things we don't do, because it's inimical to being American.
Once you start slicing off parts of the American way of life, in the cause of protecting..."the American way of life," how do you know when to stop?
Trim the 8th Amendment...oh, just a teeny bit. Now, let's prune the First...how about a little off the 5th...now the 4th is a little out of proportion...
While it is amusing to think of these other Senators running over to jump on the bandwagon, I would assume--and hope!--that Sen. Paul had many of these folks lined up. Something like this should be planned and planned well.
jr565 said...
------------
What melodrama!
This is about 5th amendment and rules of engagement for drones. Your hypothetical of clear and present danger is not interesting because nobody is disagreeing with that. I am glad someone is holding Obama accountable and answerable. I wish someone had done this kind of thing about Obamacare and we would perhaps have a better healthcare plan.
rhhardin: "The President as commander in chief has the power to drone anybody."
This is insanely stupid. It confuses the ability to kill with the right and legal authority so to do.
Fr Martin Fox wrote:
Sen. Paul just said, again, he has no issue with drones, per se, being used either in combat, or to defend the U.S.
The issue is non-combatants.
So the 19 terrorists were non combatants until they boarded planes.
Yet, if they are out to destroy targets in the US are they in fact non combatants.
What if one of the 9/11 hijackers were an American? WHat if we knew about the attack on 9/10 but the only way to take them out was with a drone strike.
What if cops went in on 9/10 and instead of using a drone strike they threw in tear gas, but the house caught on fire and all the 19 hijackers (who hadn't yet hijacked) died in the fire?
Your hypothetical of clear and present danger is not interesting because nobody is disagreeing with that.
He didn't notice the first half-dozen times that was pointed out to him, but hope springs eternal...
JR:
"So the 19 terrorists were non combatants until they boarded planes."
Well...maybe...but yeah, they could have been detained. Call me a big softie, but I think you don't kill people you don't have to, ever.
"Yet, if they are out to destroy targets in the US are they in fact non combatants."
They became combatants either when they started taking control of the airplane, or when they pointed it as a lethal weapon. Why are you unclear on this?
"What if one of the 9/11 hijackers were an American?"
Once they aim the plane as a weapon, it doesn't matter! How many times, and how many ways, does someone have to say this to you?
"WHat if we knew about the attack on 9/10 but the only way to take them out was with a drone strike."
Please explain how it could be that the "only" way to take them out was a drone strike. Why couldn't they have been seized beforehand.
"What if cops went in on 9/10 and instead of using a drone strike they threw in tear gas, but the house caught on fire and all the 19 hijackers (who hadn't yet hijacked) died in the fire?"
Oh come on, get serious.
jr565 said..
---------------
so if one the 9/11 perpetrators was sitting in a starbucks (before 9/11) and you knew he was taking flying lessons and only to just fly the plane and not take off or land, you would target him and kill him with a drone attack?
Got a drone problem? Learn how Not To Be Seen.
Seriously, that's your argument for torture?
Sen. McCain (not a fan) was right on torture. There are some things we don't do, because it's inimical to being American.
Bullshit. We waterboard people ROUTINELY when we train them in the SERE program. Dodn't say we don't do such things. We don't even do it for ticking time bomb scenarios. We do it so that people can graduate in the military. Is SERE Training somehow inimical to being American.
ANd before you say that waterboarding in the context of SERE Training isn't torture, well in fact you're wrong. The act is the act is the act. The context may be different but those in SERE training face waterboarding the exact same way as those who are waterboarded during interrogation.
Remember when all the reporters decided to let themselves be waterboarded to see if it was torture? And then most of them said "Yup, it was torture". Even though the context was just to see what it was like for a news program. So if that is torture even when the context is to report a news story and Chris Hitchens knows that he will not be killed by the act, then how could SERE training not be torture even though we call it training?
Why don't we only apply the Army Field Manual to the trainig of our cadets?
Another Democrat--Sen. Durbin--shows up. Let's see if he can say something intelligent. I'm not hopeful.
By saying that he would not waterboard Obama opened the door to second guessing by the other branches.
He made a mistake when he did that.
Durbin droning on on the obvious and pretending he does not understand Paul and co concerns.
pm317 said...
jr565 said..
---------------
so if one the 9/11 perpetrators was sitting in a starbucks (before 9/11) and you knew he was taking flying lessons and only to just fly the plane and not take off or land, you would target him and kill him with a drone attack?
------------------
In the 20-20 hindsight perspective, YES!
Whacking one of the ISlamoids by a FBI raid?
Maybe that would have meant one WTC still standing and 1,000 people (mostly US Citizens, BTW), deprived by the Islamoids of their "precious Civil Rights" still having them.
I'm just noticing titus point.
And he was absolutely right.
Durbin droning on on the obvious and pretending he does not understand Paul and co concerns.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility Durbin really doesn't understand. :)
Cedarford said..
-----------
But you had no knowledge of what he was going to do on 9/11 and maybe he didn't either. So you would still off him with a drone attack?
The sky is crying and only Rand and me and S.T. remember how and why and in the Holy Spirit did Stevie Fucking Ray Fucking Vaughn.
I used to play it in the late 90's and I for 1 ain't never gonna forget.
Maybe that would have meant one WTC still standing
Whereas if you had simply arrested the guy instead, he could have used his Super Secret Semetic Psi-Powers to remotely pilot planes into skyscrapers, killing thousands.
Sheesh, the Obama administration may be playing it coy about whether they're allowed to simply murder people in lieu of arresting them -- but not even they are dippy enough to suggest it'd be a good fuckin' idea. :)
Ron Johnson is doing something smart. He is talking about how the Dem majority senate is doing nothing useful. He and others should do more of that.
I think Sen. Johnson's job was to talk long enough for Sen. Paul to get a serious bathroom break. It's not clear to the viewer which Senators got that task, but someone has to do it.
pm317:
so if one the 9/11 perpetrators was sitting in a starbucks (before 9/11) and you knew he was taking flying lessons and only to just fly the plane and not take off or land, you would target him and kill him with a drone attack?
You're asking me absurd hypotheticals. If he were just sitting in Starbucks why couldn't I just arrest him? Or monitor his activities? Just because I could theoretically kill him with a drone attack doesn't mean that that would make sense to do so.
Rand Paul is asking for us to absolutely state we wouldnt do something that we wouldn't do 99% of the time anyway.
But for that 1% of the time where we might need to drone strike in the US, I don't see why we would preclude ourselves from that option.
99.9% of the time I woudln't be for us blowing a plane full of Americans out of the sky either. But for that .01% of the time, I'm for it.
Where's Tammy Baldwin?
pm317 wrote:
ut you had no knowledge of what he was going to do on 9/11 and maybe he didn't either. So you would still off him with a drone attack?
Why would you drone strike someone who you had no idea was going to commit a terrorist attack?
Ill state with certainty that if we have no idea that someone is going to be involved in 9/11 that we shouldn't drop a bomb on him.
Now we have the new Senator from South Carolina.
jr565 said...
------------
LOL.. so do you know what Obama will do in my hypothetical? If you don't, join the club.
THis is just grandstanding. If it's for showing how hypocritical the dems are, then I'm all for it.
But I think he's adhering to a principle without recognizing the exceptions to that rule. Meaning, he's not being realistic.
Not that I care, but I wonder if anyone is paying attention to how often these pauses "for a question" actually result in a question?
pm317 wrote:
LOL.. so do you know what Obama will do in my hypothetical? If you don't, join the club.
Rand Paul said this:
“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."
So if they were found guilty of a crime we could then drone strike them? If they were found guilty of a crime, wouldn't they be in jail? So why would we drone strike them.
Note the absolutism in this position. Apply this postion to us blowing a plane out of the sky filled with Americans.
What if I 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 having their plane blowin out of the sky on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."
That's not a qualified statement. That's an absolute statement. Never say never. Just as there may be times when we would need to blow one of our planes out of the sky, so too may there be times when we would need to use a drone strike.
How many times has our govt actually used a drone strike against a common citizen so far?
pm317 wrote:
LOL.. so do you know what Obama will do in my hypothetical? If you don't, join the club.
If the argument is that Obama will use drone strikes on people sitting in Starbucks reading a paper then I'm with ya, he shouldn't do that.
Why would Obama do that?
jr565 said...
----------------
Why don't you click on that C-SPAN link right now and listen to Ted Cruz about why they are doing what they are doing? You may learn something new.
so if one the 9/11 perpetrators was sitting in a starbucks (before 9/11) and you knew he was taking flying lessons and only to just fly the plane and not take off or land, you would target him and kill him with a drone attack?
If we knew the hijackers were plannning an attack that would kill 3000 Americans the I would at the very least be monitoring them, very possibly with drones. or monitoring their commmunication, tailing them. Would that necessitate dropping a bomb on them right off the bat? No. But if they were enroute to the airport about to carry out the attack and I had no other way to stop them, then yeah, I would drone strike them. Even if one of them was an American.
It depends on the options (or lack of options) available.
JR:
"But if they were enroute to the airport about to carry out the attack and I had no other way to stop them, then yeah, I would drone strike them."
I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's stupid. Look at what you just wrote. "no other way to stop them"--in what universe is that true?
The terrorist is--in your words--en route to the airport. How? By car? Helicopter? Submarine? Teleporter? How, exactly, is this terrorist going to get to the airport, and get on the plane, and you--as a stand-in for the government, has "no other way to stop them"...but a drone?
I answered your question. I'd like an answer to this question of mine.
Everyone I talk to is in agreement that Rand Paul is a paleo-con nut.
What was this American doing cavorting with terrorists in Yemen? Of course he deserved to be blown to smithereens. The more the better!
This is the telling comments from the linked article:
(and god help me for agreeing with Eric Holder)
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. responded to Paul’s inquiry Monday, saying the administration has “no intention” of carrying out drone strikes on suspected terrorists in the United States, but could use them in response to “an extraordinary circumstance” such as a major terrorist attack.
Extraordinary circumstances! Not some guy sitting in a Starbucks. Why not address what YOU would do or what Paul would do in those EXTRAORDINARY circumstances. The exceptions to the rule.
Paul called Holder’s refusal to rule out drone strikes within the United States “more than frightening.”
On Wednesday, Paul elaborated on his concerns: “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.”
it's not an easy question. Any more than blowing a plane out of the sky would be an easy question. In normal circumstances, no you don't blow passenger jets out of the sky. THe suggestion that you would is ludicrous. But under extraordinary circumstances? Well, maybe. So why would Rand Paul refuse to allow for responses to extraordinary circumstances?
Would I waterboard anyone we found on the battlefield? Absolutely not. Woudl I waterboard KSM? Absolutely. Would I drop a nuke? In most circumstances, no. Would I drop a nuke if it would lead to the abrupt end of WWII and spare hundreds of thousands more dying in a protacted battle? Maybe.
Stick to the extraordinary circumstances and then lets have the conversation.
JR:
Back to your example.
How does the terrorist you described get to the airport, and on an airplane, and the government has no way to stop him but a drone?
Everyone I talk to is in agreement that Rand Paul is a paleo-con nut.
The voices in your head aren't really there, dearie.
The terrorist is--in your words--en route to the airport. How? By car? Helicopter? Submarine? Teleporter? How, exactly, is this terrorist going to get to the airport, and get on the plane, and you--as a stand-in for the government, has "no other way to stop them"...but a drone?
How should I know. I'm supposed to come up with every possible hypothetical? What if they're driving down the street, and are enroute to the airport but cops arent' on hand to stop them before getting into the airport. BUt you are monitoring them with a drone. And what if you don't know if they have explosives on them so may set off a bomb in the airport if you corner them with cops.
The point is, since it would only be used under extraordinary circumstances the only time you would need to use them would be under extremely rare circumstances.But for those extremely rare circumstances then yes, we should use drone strikes. How often do I predict those circumstances from occuring? Practically never.
Rand Paul and you are saying NEVER.
If Rand paul is saying that he is allowing for us to do things during extraordinary circumstances and Eric Holder is saying we would only use these in extreme cases, then where exactly is the argument?
The suggestion seems to be that the president, whoever he is, would just start using targeted droning for everyday people in everyday situations. And such an idea is ludicrous. Even for Obama (and you know I'm not a fan of obama).
LIbertarians and repubs should not go down the road that the libs went down where they fight, frankly, common sense measures that are designed to keep us safe and fight a war on the premise that the president is the next HItler.
How does the terrorist you described get to the airport, and on an airplane, and the government has no way to stop him but a drone?
How about if they made it to the plane and are on board and about to take off. can we blow the plane up before it takes off?
With any look, I can't see, a bad goodbye.
Goodbye.
Easier said than done,
Goodbye.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=clint+black+goodbye+wynona&btnG=Submit&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1
jr565 said...
--------------
All I can say is that Obama is counting on guys like you. He knows he has the liberal left in a blindfold, deaf and dumb. Now if he can get the righties who generally get excited about blowing 'bad' people up anyways, he has nothing to fear, no accountability, no responsibility, no checks, no balance.
Extraordinary circumstances! Not some guy sitting in a Starbucks.
You're running approximately four hours behind in this conversation.
The question isn't "does the President have the power to kill people in extraordinary circumstances". Everybody involved has agreed from the beginning that the answer to that question is "yes"; had you paid attention, you'd know that.
The question under discussion "does the President have the power to order Americans killed in less-than-extraordinary circumstances". Obama and Holder have refused to answer that question with a "no"; thus, the filibuster.
I'm fully confident that the above will fail to sink into your thick skull, because hey -- you're you, and this is your schtick. But a few other people might be new to the thread, so I'm mentioning it for their benefit. :)
pm317 wrote:
All I can say is that Obama is counting on guys like you. He knows he has the liberal left in a blindfold, deaf and dumb. Now if he can get the righties who generally get excited about blowing 'bad' people up anyways, he has nothing to fear, no accountability, no responsibility, no checks, no balance
I was down with Bush's anti terror policies, so long as they were in the context of anti terrorism. So why would i be a hypocrite now and say Obama is wrong for carrying out Bush's policies?
The question under discussion "does the President have the power to order Americans killed in less-than-extraordinary circumstances". Obama and Holder have refused to answer that question with a "no"; thus, the filibuster.
Eric Holder said:
the administration has “no intention” of carrying out drone strikes on suspected terrorists in the United States, but could use them in response to “an extraordinary circumstance” such as a major terrorist attack.
IT sounds like, therefore, Eric Holder is talking about extraordinary circumstances.
I asked (about your own example):
How does the terrorist you described get to the airport, and on an airplane, and the government has no way to stop him but a drone?
JR said:
How should I know. I'm supposed to come up with every possible hypothetical?
No, just explain your own doggone hypothetical, which you offered, in support of your own doggone position!
Then JR said:
How about if they made it to the plane and are on board and about to take off. can we blow the plane up before it takes off?
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.
Look, I realize it's not pleasant to pose a hypothetical and have someone else point out it's ridiculous. I'm not trying to make you feel bad.
But if you can't bring yourself to simply say, "you're right--the one about the drone being the only way to prevent a terrorist from getting on a plane was ridiculous," then we're not getting anywhere, and I'm done with this. It's just not going anywhere.
Rand Paul said:
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.”
There's no discussion of extraordinary circumstances in Rand Pauls retort. Should it have been an unequivical no, even under extraordinary circumstances? MY guess is Paul would say, yes.
At least based on his absolute statement.
Is the administration arguing that they should be able to use drone strikes on targets under ordinary circumstances?
Thank God!
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.
I feel so reassured.
FR Martin Fox 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.
Look, I realize it's not pleasant to pose a hypothetical and have someone else point out it's ridiculous. I'm not trying to make you feel bad.
What if we were talking about the hypothetical of people with boxcutters and plastic knives boarding planes, comandeering them and then flying them into buildings. Prior to 9/11 I would argue such a hypothetical would be a ridiculous one.
jr565..
---------
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?
JR:
See ya.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा