Fillibuster
 

Starting to like Rand Paul the more I see and hear him. Looks like
one of the few that means what he says and says what he means and
works for his principles.
Using a drone to take out an American citizen who maybe a terrorist without
an arrest, evidence, and trial is against the Constitution, period.
What are these people thinking?
You can't waterboard a terrorist, but you can kill an American without his due rights??

Last night when he was in his 7th hour, I announced a pledge of $2/hr he was up there. I figured there was a chance he could make it into the 16-20 hour mark. Since he went 13 hours, I'm making it $3/hr to his PAC.

Not my Senator but I sure as hell appreciate him making a very bold stand to defend the Constitution.

Whew, for a minute there I thought I had a crosshairs on my back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he had to take a crap ....so he ended his introspection of current events.

they'll have ufo's (read spying vehicles) all over our skies ,
What with invisibility technology on the horizon transferring the image of whats behind you
onto a projectable (read light display) skin on the front of you
SOON ENOUGH :hs:

Rand Paul did not accomplish anything...he only delayed the vote by a day of John Brennan

i disagree
 

He got it stated in Writing that KING Obama
cannot use drones to aerial bomb targets in
the good ol USA .

He certainly did accomplish wasting time and money.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, he accomplised his goal of calling attention to the American people of
the stupid idea by the administration and a final NO from the waffeling Holder.

I wish we had drones during Vietnam....we could have gotten Hanoi Jane while she was out of country

You could not come up with a better reason to invent drones than to have blown her to smithereens. Why she wasn't charged with treason is beyond me. And she still enjoys celebrity status. Incredible.

conservative = bad, we get it, Spence.

Fillibuster....French word meaning.....wind bag!!!

Larry, ya knows I luvs ya, but that bit of info is coming from a guy
with over 21,000 posts and was the first to have 10,000. LOL !!!!

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :D :buds:
How ya been, ya haven't been over here in ages. :huh:

Drones are the devil's own devices. How would Americans like it if a foreign country sent one here to take out one of their enemies. Innocent lives are lost not to mention the property damage. They are already used here for advertising, government snooping on the fishing fleet, etc. Now they want to target Americans at home. The FAA is planning a ban in the next few years. Why not now??

Actually just the opposite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually a very important Fillibuster. We are living in an age where we are becoming a country of "men" rather than a country of laws. Ironic the President gets to decide which Citizen is murdered by drone strike without a trial as guarenteed by the Constitution while an enemy combatant who played a critical role in killing thousands of Americans gets a trial with the rights of a citizen in civilian court.

What happens when we get a President (or Governer or Police Chief)who you don't agree with and they get to choose who lives and dies, who gets spyed on and who doesn't.

Bingo, freakin unbelieveable.

it's important to remember that....
THE MEN IN BLACK ARE Real

and when they told honorable Americans...
"The desert is a really big place
and we can make you disappear"
............they weren't kidding...
~
and just to give you an example, in Mexico
26,000 citizens have "disappeared"

He is not the kook his father is, fortunately.

What he did was IMO pretty positive. In an era with congress generally abdicating their responsibilities and folding up their tents, he asked a SIMPLE question with that could not / would not be answered. Will the administration support the use of drones to kill Americans on American soil without due process?

The simple (and only) answer Constitutionally is NO.

After a lot of pressure, driven by Paul, the Obama Admin finally replied no.

The targeted killing of an American abroad (al-Awalki) was the start of a slippery slope. Personally I have no issue with the dirtbag meeting his maker. BUT was that Constitutionally proper action? It is a slippery slope. America & our elected leaders might need to have a discussion on this.

There also needs to be a discussion on the use of drones. I'm pretty pro keeping out people safe by using technology where practical BUT one of the highly weighted factors in making a decisions to use force is danger to your people. If you remove that filter do you lower the bar to use force on others.

to give you an example... of dronage mis -use during a time of non- drones
was when i was staying in SD cal. for several months doing some home repairs while
still maintaining my east coast residence...
the SD police helicopter was doing aerial surveillance of this little stretch of highway
that was very steep and dangerous.....
but to do so....they had to hover very close to my backyard
to "see" their speeding motorists in order to radio ahead to bust them
.....tickets from the sky..... :hs: Bull shet

well i wanted to keep our parrot out in the middle of the yard in a bottle brush tree
to give him some excercise..... fresh air , sunshine...
the chopper was scaring him to death....
i called them up and told them to quit hovering there
your harming my animals....and they LEFT

I don't see how there's even a question. What's the difference between using a drone to kill an American on US soil vs using a police or FBI sniper? Are we now saying the police can't shoot someone they believe is about to cause significant harm?

Hell, that's all Holder was saying.

-spence

Wow!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's with the wow? Every police force in the country has this right.

-spence

Posse Comitatus Act - that is the difference.

I'm not sure that's really germane to the discussion.

Drones aren't exclusive to military use. Sure, there's limited permitting for domestic use today but the entire game is set to change in 2015 when the FAA starts to open thing up for real. While I wouldn't expect the average police drone to have kill capabilities it's almost a given for the FBI or other domestic government agency to put this in place to handle terror or other crisis response.

There's a reasonable discussion on killing Americans abroad and perhaps another on targeted killings in general (though I think we're way past that turning point. As for drone use on our own soil, I'm not sure what the big dilly really is.

-spence

Armed drones are the military / CIA. Both are prevented by Federal law from conduction operations in the United States.

Police departments or the FBI are not using drones that will be armed. Maybe they could fly one into a citizen but that is a lot harder than it sounds.

It is precisely germane to the discussion.

as porous as our borders are....

the ones that can fire target acquired specialty rounds
will certainly be on the menu.

Multiple issues here...

1) The Feds already have the ability to use deadly force as a means of last resort and this is precisely the scenario Holder referenced.

2) That the Feds don't have armed drones today doesn't mean they won't have them soon. Especially considering the explosion of drone activity we're going to encounter in a few years the FBI will have to have additional capabilities to counter potential drone based security threats.

With the increasing trend towards outside contracting drone support it would be easy to transfer liability to another organization...or...the FBI may already have them actually and we just don't know about it.

That the Administration's response put so many qualifications on the use of domestic drones makes the filibuster all the more absurd. We should start making up all sorts of hypothetical situations and demand concrete answers...

This is a long way from Obama ordering a Hellfire into the corner Starbucks to eliminate Karl Rove.

-spence

Spence, do you ever, and I mean ever, look at things objectively?

to your #1...yes, the FBI and municipal SWAT teams have snipers. Those snipers can only use lethal force when faced with immediate lethal harm. These drone attacks can kill an unarmed guy (albeit a terrorist) reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat to anyone. These drones can't be used in hostage situations when a terrorist is holding a gun to the head of an innocent person.

to your #2, that's pure, wild speculation on your part...

I'm curious, Spence, as to why it's so wrong to waterboard a terrorist who is not a US citizen, but it's acceptable to kill an American citizen on American soil.

As someone here posted...we actually have a President who thinks it's OK to kill an American citizen on US soil without due process, and at the same time, wants to give civilian trials (with all the rights therein) to foreign Al Queda terroists. So according to Obama, the constitution may apply to foreign-born Al Queda terrorists, but not to actual US citizens on US soil.

That's as perverse as it gets, and it's precisely what I'd expect from a 1960's Chicago radical who supports infanticide and goes to that deranged whackjob's church for 20 years. Somehow, we elected this idiotic, constitution-trampling, fascist twice, and therefore we deserve everything he's going to do to us. Unfortunately, Obama's policies will have a lasting painful legacy that will extend to our kids...

Always, that's probably why my posts look so foreign to you.

Killing an unarmed terrorist reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat doesn't even meet the ROE for a drone strike in Afghanistan. Why would it here at home?

Not speculation, it's simple reason.

The two scenarios are not analogous.

Nobody has ever said that, you're either making it up, are grossly misinformed or perhaps just a bit wacky.

Here's the rub. Would anybody have had an issue with the US Air Force shooting down one of the 9/11 planes? Nope. Would anybody have an issue with the US Air Force shooting down a plane loaded with explosives headed toward NYC? Nope...

Well, perhaps Rand would.

Ahhh, and out comes Mr. Hyde. I thought you were getting a bit wacky in that last paragraph.

-spence

I really don't see where the need for shooting down a jet will ever come up again. I mean it's not like we will ever allow knifes on planes again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

........................................



wacky would describe many of your statements which it appear to be leaving many here and most experts are quite shocked :uhuh:

'imminent threat'- Obama Administration Style

US Launched Deadly Drone Strike From Saudi Arabia: Reports - ABC News
However, the document says that by "imminent threat," the DOJ does not mean the U.S. government actually has to have "clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future," but rather a "broader concept of imminence" must take into consideration terrorists who are we know that napolitano has a very "broad concept" of who terrorists are and are likely to be...

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

The Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) issued April 7 the nine-page document titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

“The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States,” Ms. Napolitano said in her statement.

Rightwing extremism,” the report said in a footnote on Page 2, goes beyond religious and racial hate groups and extends to “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” said the report, which also listed gun owners and veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as potential risks."


"continually planning" attacks and the typically limited window during which a lethal operation may be conducted.




love that...."broader concept of imminence"...yada yada yada

Definition of IMMINENT
: ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over
'
im·mi·nence (m-nns)
n.
1. The quality or condition of being about to occur.
2. Something about to occur



broader definition...that's great....these guys have a broader definition/concept for everything that they deem appropriate

hindsight...noone knew that the first two were intended for the towers, you could say that the third should have been shot down as we then knew that the intention was to kill all on board and cause massive damage as a result of the fate of the first two but if the first one or two had been shot down not knowing where they were actually headed and given the history of hijackings....I think there would have been quite an uproar:uhuh:

"Killing an unarmed terrorist reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat doesn't even meet the ROE for a drone strike in Afghanistan":

See, once again, you are making things up as you go along. According to the Geneva Convention, it is absolutely acceptable to kill enemy soldiers, even if they are asleep and thus not an imminent threat. Drone strikes aren't launched to kill terrorists who are literally in the act of trying to kill anybody, they aren't that precise (that's what snipers are for).

Spence, do you think that soldiers can only kill other soldiers in self defense? Those are the ROE's for police departments, not the standards in time of war.

Where do you get your "information"? Have you no shame? None at all? Spence, if you're going to make up jibberish, try not to invent jibberishthat is so demonstrably false. Try to at least fabricate something that might fool a 6 year-old.

apparently, if a "suspected" killer, terrorist, plotter or maybe just a former military single issue opposed to immigration authority rejecting antigovernment radical who is deemed an imminent threat using the "broader concept " of imminence and American citizen happens to escape our borders and take up residence in a foreign land, it would be OK? for the government to send a drone in and shoot a hellfire missile into where ever he's pulled off to the side of the road and having lunch?


I'm not defending these guys and not saying they don't deserve it but we do have laws and they are "suspects" and considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law aren't they? this sets a very bad precedent...especially with an administration that tortures and broadens definitions so frequently..........I count three American Citizens suspected of crimes executed without trials...just sayin'....kinda opens the door for all sorts of misbehaviour......
...

He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family's home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him. He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he'd lived while on his search, and the friends he'd made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.
Robert Gibbs Says Anwar al-Awlaki's Son, Killed By Drone Strike, Needs 'Far More Responsible Father'

Gibbs' comments were released the same day The Washington Post published an expose on the White House's growing database of people it believes it has the authority to kill without trial.

The American Civil Liberties Union warned Wednesday in a response that the policy of "bureaucratized paramilitary killing" is illegal and will backfire.

"Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong," said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, in a statement. "The danger of dispensing with due process is obvious because without it, we cannot be assured that the people in the government's death database truly present a concrete, imminent threat to the country. What we do know is that tragic mistakes have been made, hundreds of civilian bystanders have died, and our government has even killed a 16-year-old U.S. citizen without acknowledging, let alone explaining his death.



no need to worry...it's not like they ever overreach or exceed their authority......:)