Fillibuster

[justplugit]

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??

[JohnnyD]

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.

[spence]

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

[Raven]

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

[Fly Rod]

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

[Raven]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

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

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Fly Rod]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

conservative = bad, we get it, Spence.

[BigFish]

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by BigFish

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.
How ya been, ya haven't been over here in ages.

[seabuggy]

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??

[spence]

Originally Posted by seabuggy

The FAA is planning a ban in the next few years. Why not now??

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

[Fishpart]

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

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.

Bingo, freakin unbelieveable.

[Raven]

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"

[JohnR]

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.

[Raven]

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..... 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

[spence]

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Wow!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Posse Comitatus Act - that is the difference.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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

[JohnR]

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.

[Raven]

as porous as our borders are....

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

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.

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?

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

Not speculation, it's simple reason.

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.

The two scenarios are not analogous.

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.

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.

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...

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

-spence