NoSaint Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 No thread on rand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Every thread pays homage to Rand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 This is why........................... Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil' President Barack Obama has the authority to use an unmanned drone strike to kill US citizens on American soil, his attorney general has said. Eric Holder argued that using lethal military force against an American in his home country would be legal and justified in an "extraordinary circumstance" comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks. "The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland," Mr Holder said. His statement was described as "more than frightening" by Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, who had demanded to know the Obama administration's position on the subject. HOLDER: Obama 'has authority to kill citizens in USA'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 He's certainly cementing his slogan for 2016 if he goes that direction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 fck yeah i stand with rand. i dont like hashtags though... love me some fillibuster. i just wish more senators had the nuts to stand up there with him. i hope this goes on for days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 TWEET OF THE DAY: Perplexing that Rand Paul has to go through this to ask a Nobel Peace Prize winner whether or not he agrees with killing U.S. citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) i hope this goes on for days. Not likely. He can't sit, not even for a second, and he can't leave, not even to go to the bathroom. Unless he's wearing astronaut underwear, this will be over tomorrow. Someone tonight mentioned the longest filibuster on record was 24 hours and 18 minutes. Let's hope he can keep it going, but let's not fool ourselves; a president who willfully wants Americans to feel the pains of budget cuts to gain political points doesn't give a rat's asshair about Rand Paul or anyone, really, other than himself. Edited March 7, 2013 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 fck yeah i stand with rand. i dont like hashtags though... love me some fillibuster. i just wish more senators had the nuts to stand up there with him. i hope this goes on for days. I'm not a twitter person but he's getting 2,000 tweets a minute currently. That hash tag will be big for him moving forward, if leveraged properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 TWEET OF THE DAY: Perplexing that Rand Paul has to go through this to ask a Nobel Peace Prize winner whether or not he agrees with killing U.S. citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 This is unbelievably fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Rand Paul’s Excellent Question By Charles C. W. Cooke As Adam Serwer reported yesterday on Mother Jones: Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in “an extraordinary circumstance,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday. Serwer quotes a letter in which Eric Holder explains his position: The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. 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. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001. That is superficially convincing, but it absolutely won’t do. I would certainly like the president to “protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack.” Who wouldn’t? Who really questions whether the government should be able to respond to military attacks on American soil? Nobody. And nobody doubts that police may shoot dead U.S. citizens who are shooting at the innocent, either. But, as Rand Paul points out, that’s not the question. This is the question: It’s not so simple. You see, the drone strike program is under the Department of Defense, so when the C.I.A. says they’re not going to kill you in America, they’re not saying the Defense Department won’t. So Eric Holder sent a response, the attorney general, and his response says, “I haven’t killed anyone yet. I don’t intend to kill anyone but I might.” And he pulls out examples that really aren’t under consideration. There is the use of lethal force that can always be repelled. If our country is attacked, the president has the right to defend and protect the country. Nobody questions that. Nobody questions if planes are flying towards the twin towers whether they can be repulsed by the military. Nobody questions whether a terrorist with a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher is attacking us, whether they can be repelled. They don’t get their day in court. But if you are sitting in a cafeteria in Dearborne, if you happen to be an Arab-American who has a relative in the middle east and you communicate with them by e-mail and somebody says, oh, your relative is someone we suspect of being associated with terrorism, is that enough to kill you?. . . We have a process for deciding this. We have courts for deciding this, to allow one man to accuse you in secret, you never get notified you have been accused. Your notification is the buzz of the propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you’re killed. Is that what we really want from our government? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Good article from Fournier today. Funny how liberals cried and screamed and raged about waterboarding. And yet stayed far away from the chamber last night. They are lockstep with their boss...but what happens when their guy is no longer president? http://www.nationalj...arfare-20130307 “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, unequivocal , ‘No,’ Paul said. “The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that.” No, we’re not. As I’ve written before, there has been a shameful lack of outrage -- particularly among Democrats and liberal commentators -- over Obama’s stance that a U.S. president can kill American citizens with no due process, no transparency, and no accountability. If President George W. Bush had taken this stance in 2008, is there any doubt that candidate Obama would have opposed it? But this isn’t just about Obama. Even if you trust his judgment and fidelity to the Constitution, Obama is setting a precedent for future leaders -- perhaps a president you wouldn't empower as judge, jury and executioner. Edited March 7, 2013 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Seems there are two threads on the same topic, so may as well post here. No one seems to remember that US military jets were scrambled on 9/11/01 and orders were given to shoot. But because drone is a bad sounding word, it caries a different connotation. Here's a sober take on the situation from a noted Obama supporter Don't Be Ridiculous Rand "... Before 9/11 it would have been unthinkable for the U.S. military to shoot down a commercial passenger airplane deliberately. Even after 9/11 it would be unacceptable and outrageous under almost all circumstances. Holder's memo makes clear that the administration views drone strikes within U.S. territory in a similar light. Paul's question to Holder was entirely reasonable. The same can't be said of Paul's reaction to the answer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 fck yeah i stand with rand. i dont like hashtags though... love me some fillibuster. i just wish more senators had the nuts to stand up there with him. i hope this goes on for days. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/tp/Five-Longest-Filibusters.htm The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmondof South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records. Ahh the party of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Oh looky, A youtube video to form Lybob's thoughts. Right on cue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 http://usgovinfo.abo...Filibusters.htm The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmondof South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records. Ahh the party of choice. from the link 5. U.S. Sen. William Proxmire Proxmire was concerned about the nation's rising debt level. The bill he wanted to stall action on authorizing a total debt of $1 trillion. Sen. Proxmire would be crapping his pants right now if he saw what his party (as well as the GOP) has been doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 Mccains comments that it was just a pr move for "libertarian kids" should play well to both disenfranchised republicans and younger voters.... Or not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Mccains comments that it was just a pr move for "libertarian kids" should play well to both disenfranchised republicans and younger voters.... Or not.... McCain and Graham never looked more insignificant than they did today. And after watching the late stages of McCain's presidential campaign, that's saying quite a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 The hawks are becoming a dying breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts