Sen. Paul Reaches Victory Through Filibuster :dancing banana:

might as well round me up now.. im gonna be an issue....:cool: bring it bitches....
 
@Jim:

... Rand was calling into question President Barack Obama's Peace Prize bona fides ...
Click to expand...


Thank you. That raised a wry smile.
 
redrumloa said:
Obviously you have missed a lot. Go back and read a few threads I posted over the last ~4 years.
...
At least he got an answer from Eric Holder. Prior to the filibuster no one could even get that.
Click to expand...
Bullpucky!

Holder was asked about drone strikes here's the answer he gave.
Eric_Holder said:
"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,"
Click to expand...
So indeed there was an answer from Holder prior to the filibuster.

Paul didn't like that answer
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.
Click to expand...

As a result Paul conducted a 13 hour filibuster. In the end the filibuster caved because
Rand_Paul said:
'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
Click to expand...

In the end Rand accepted an equivocated YES! And the answer at the end was exactly the same as the beginning. The US Government has the power to use the US Military to attack someone within US soil that they deem as a threat to the United States.

Obviously you have missed a lot! Go back to 1878 and read the Posse Commitatus Act. Understand that the US government gave themselves the right to use any power of the US military on US citizens. The big defining point within the 1878 law is it only can do so under 'extraordinary circumstances'... Wait who said that? Oh yeah Holder.

Rand was all show. There is no change here. The US Government can use their power to kill you as long as they decide that you are a terroristic threat to this nation. Similar to how the GHW Bush used the military in California for riot control. There's nothing different with a drone it's just another type of arm in their arsenal.

...

Personally, I stand with the first Rand - we should have no killings of US citizens without trial. I do not stand with the 13 hour older Rand that collapsed and never achieved his original point. In the end the nation is exactly where we were at the start. Well, with the exception of Rand having some pretty pictures in the newspaper.
 
Here's another recap:
Rand_Paul said:
"If you're sitting in a cafe, and somebody thinks you're conspiring with (a terrorist), you should be charged or imprisoned if they can make the charges stick. But they shouldn't just drop a Hellfire missile on you."
...
"We'd like them to say they don't have the legal authority to kill Americans on American soil."
Click to expand...

Rand_Paul said:
Holder said:
'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
Click to expand...
This is a major victory for American civil liberties
Click to expand...

Rand Paul = Troll.
 
faethor said:
The US Government can use their power to kill you as long as they decide that you are a terroristic threat to this nation.
Click to expand...
And by "nation" they mean themselves and their rich buddies.

BTW, even if Rand didn't get much he still did the nation a service. For 13 hours the legislators could at least do no other harm.
 
I agree with faethor. The US doesn't need drones to bomb people, they can do that in so many other ways. Singling out drones is ignoring the 20 other elephants in the room. You could out right ban drones and still be no safer then you were before. It's a big joke.
 
Glaucus said:
I agree with faethor. The US doesn't need drones to bomb people, they can do that in so many other ways. Singling out drones is ignoring the 20 other elephants in the room. You could out right ban drones and still be no safer then you were before. It's a big joke.
Click to expand...
It's amazing the numbers of people that don't get it. Maybe I'm putting to much thought into this -- seems to me the 'fear of drones' (new psychological fear needs creating there) is probably unconscious and a subset of the general fear of technology (luddite).
 
drone me... im not sick of living, but this shit will not stand.... i don't care about eric holders hypothetical nonsense... the mere fact that these drones get to take flight across this country is an offense so great it is indescribable....
 
Get seriously ready for drones. The airspace for civilian drones is going to be opened up in 2014. The drone market is set to take off. With the advent of mobile computing (read smartphones) drones are a technology in it's infancy. It's hard to say what they'll all do. But, what they will do is be a commonplace within a decade.

Like any technology a citizen could easily weaponize one for their own terrorist purposes.
 
faethor said:
Get seriously ready for drones. The airspace for civilian drones is going to be opened up in 2014. The drone market is set to take off. With the advent of mobile computing (read smartphones) drones are a technology in it's infancy. It's hard to say what they'll all do. But, what they will do is be a commonplace within a decade.

Like any technology a citizen could easily weaponize one for their own terrorist purposes.
Click to expand...

get "seriously ready for me to not embrace this new technology with anything less than something explosive"
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
And the next guy isn't going to roll that back. It'll just ratchet up another notch. When the US goes Egyptian don't expect the US elites to fold as easily. The ducks are being lined up. We are supposed to not worry though until they want to use the ducks and then it's too late. Even when the people know there's a ditch waiting at the end of the march no-one wants to be the one to start trouble with the guards or make a break for it. Human nature and the psychos depend on it.
Click to expand...

I never said the next guy won't be worse. Some people, without naming names, still have the crazy notion that Bush was worse and Obama is much better. In reality Bush really started this nonsense with the POS Patriot Act, but it has gotten far, far worse under Obama. The next guy will probably be worse yet, regardless if he is a Repub or Democrap. This country is broken and most of the people are sheep.
 
robert l. bentham said:
get "seriously ready for me to not embrace this new technology with anything less than something explosive"
Click to expand...
There are perfectly valid uses of drones. For the Gov. too!

Here's one example. Minnesota Counties each spend tens of thousands of dollars every 2-4 years to do aerial mapping of their County. In 5 years we should be able to do that same mapping with higher fidelity, faster, with less fuel by using a drone. In addition to saving lots of much we'll find new uses for higher quality and more frequent data. One thing I can think of is how useful it'd be to have a monthly progression map of the river basins. Providing a better service more cost effectively is typically seen as a good thing.

Though, this can of course be bad. Today if you build a building without a permit you can probably get away a few years, until the Assessor stops by and sees it. Better maps, quicker will allow me to overlay property maps detecting land usage changes and find that building much quicker. Thereby raising your taxes or forcing a tear down if you've broken laws in it's construction.
 
faethor said:
There are perfectly valid uses of drones. For the Gov. too!
Click to expand...
And then there are the other uses - and they are going to keep "all options on the table" as they like to say when what they mean is "we are making preparations to attack you and we're just not ready yet".
Therein lies the problem. There are lots of good uses for drones but killing is a use that they don't want to let go of. Make a law to stop the bad uses and we might be more comfortable about it but they won't.

Maybe I'm putting to much thought into this -- seems to me the 'fear of drones' (new psychological fear needs creating there) is probably unconscious and a subset of the general fear of technology (luddite).
Click to expand...
Yup, that's what those Pakistani villagers and their kids are when they can't sleep at night - luddites.

No, here's the problem - it makes it even easier than it was before to kill people. The pilot is taking no personal risk and he isn't even really personally involved - he is emotionally isolated from your plight. Once upon a time when you had to send a man out to kill someone your killer had to get pumped, put in the time and effort and be willing to take some modicum of risk. That gives you at least the semblance of a chance - the invulnerable hunter really makes you game and the sport is out of it. The idea that you are constantly under surveillance and that you can be killed at just the push of a button and there is nothing you can do about it and no appeal you can make is not the nightmare of the luddite, it is the nightmare of every human being that yearns to be free. It is the nightmare that the distopian sci-fi writers and futurists conjure to make our flesh crawl and prick our sense of injustice. It is not the fear of technology, technology merely enables. It is the fear of supreme unbridled capricious power to kill with impunity in the hands of men you'll never know.
 
There are lots of good uses for drones but killing is a use that they don't want to let go of
Click to expand...
Agreed. They didn't let go of killing us in any way with anything. Why should there be an 'not if by drone' exception? Well, besides spending millions of $ to kill me versus thee $1 for a sniper bullet fired from over a mile away. If the Gov is going to kill me I'm personally glad I was worth those millions. ;)

No, here's the problem - it makes it even easier than it was before to kill people
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement. I was the one that posted here of how cowardly it is to use a drone versus meeting your enemy face to face on the battlefield. Safer for the killer, of course, but cowardly.

It is the fear of supreme unbridled capricious power to kill with impunity in the hands of men you'll never know.
Click to expand...
Psst it existed prior to the drone. Sniper world record 1.54miles (or 2.7km)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top