Jump to content


- - - - -

Rand Paul.... you been warned but people don't care


#31 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2384 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Posted 09 March 2013 - 08:42 PM

Paul wanted, all along, the official stance from the White House regarding the use of drone strikes within US borders.

The White House clarified their stance.

If he then went on and asked about drone strikes outside the US, the chicken gallery would be clucking stuff about "moving the goal posts" and such. Maybe, one day, Paul will pull another stunt like this and ask for official policy on overseas drone strikes.


Agreed, Bob. I personally think the drone use internationally is terrifying too, but Paul asked for clarity on the specific issue of drone strikes on Americans, which would violate due process. Assuming he's even remotely like his dad, Paul would be a fierce Constitutionalist, so while his view may be hurray international drones, or boo international drones, his request for clarification was on how the feds could apply drone strikes to US citizens, in the United States. You can lament him for not using the same filibuster to take on big oil, health care, or even ongoing international conflicts, but his point was regarding a specific issue, and one that Holder finally had to clarify, pretending like his first letter already did that, when it clearly did not.

I just don't get usickme's point (?) that we shouldn't celebrate Paul fighting for clarification, because that means he tacitly approves international drone strikes. I haven't seen anyone accuse him of that politically, in the news, or anywhere else, beyond usickme.

It's not fair to say Paul used the filibuster for just a sliver of good, so therefore Fuck his efforts. Any good from it is a win, especially considering our Congress was involved, and a member of Congress actually achieved a positive goal. That's a rarity these days.

#32 Sarang01   My Use Name Is Saber CAGiversary!   5116 Posts   Joined 10.7 Years Ago  

Posted 10 March 2013 - 03:01 AM

It still amazes me we've moved from the George Bush's Constitutional violations to this, Constitutional violations by a supposed Constitutional lawyer.
In fact on the drone issue Obama behaves like a fucking king. "Don't question me!!! I'm your President!!!!"(see: King in his behavior). It doesn't help that people like Bradley Manning have seen maximum charges being levied against them for just embarrassing our country in face. As an American I don't give a RATS ASS if my country(see: senators and others in government) are embarrassed by leaked material. Embarrassment alone does not make a set of documents confidential.
I imagine one day, if Eric Holder's policy stands true, I'll be vacationing overseas and be shot dead by a drone on a bullshit terrorist charge(see: disagreeing with our President/perhaps King at the time). Honestly, all of this information on drones and their abilities should terrify people. Besides the complete invasion of privacy considering we're talking fully roving cameras, it's only a matter of time, if you're lucky they'll arrest on some bullshit trumped up charge.
Heck when Obama's term is over will it truly be over? All my parents do is shrug their shoulders about this shit because they're Democrats. Well my mom says, "I know you feel strongly about this.". I don't think she fucking understands, most every "Freedom Of Speech" is being effected short of "Freedom Of Religion" and possibly "Right To Petition". What will happen with "Freedom Of Assembly" when people peaceably assemble and protest? People just shrug their shoulder and are fucking resigned. Jeez people, stop being so high, wake up out of your daze and shout this nonsense down.
edit: Hopefully since there are other jamming devices someone has a drone jamming device you can buy so some government degenerate won't try to play peek in your windows.
Posted Image

"Friends let friends eat each other out.".

#33 usickenme   I'm the a-hole CAGiversary!   2492 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

usickenme

Posted 10 March 2013 - 06:00 AM


I just don't get usickme's point (?) that we shouldn't celebrate Paul fighting for clarification, because that means he tacitly approves international drone strikes. I haven't seen anyone accuse him of that politically, in the news, or anywhere else, beyond usickme.

.



Hey celebrate it all you want. Want I am saying is that it really doesn't mean much. The "clarification" doesn't change the policy. (not to mention Paul was clearly exaggerating the policy parameters to score points with his base with the idea Obama is out to bomb people who disagree with him). If you read Paul's original letter to Brennen he posed a lot of good questions. Letter #2 zeros in on US citizens and the 3rd letter is only about US citizen's on US soil. The cynic in me thinks this is the result of which is politically looks good. And what do you know...Paul is parlaying his "stand" into a nice little fundraising effort.


National Review has a good summation http://www.nationalr...one-war-editors

I'm not quite sure what Paul's stance on international drone strikes are. I do know that Drone are part of his border strategy.

It also strikes me as tremendously hypocritical when the some same people #standingwithRand, are largely the same people who cheered the Patriot Act because now they can get to criticize Obama.

#34 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2636 Posts   Joined 5.6 Years Ago   Has been playing Diablo III: Ultimate Evil Edition
PS3

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 10 March 2013 - 03:31 PM

sure but what does any of that have to do with explaining things like a child would understand?


Because the statement released by Holder is vague and either means nothing, or something much worse. "Enemy combatant" has been proven by both the Bush and Obama administrations (Jose Padilla, Anwar Al-Awlaki and his son for highest profile examples) to mean something other than someone actively engaging in acts of aggression. In reading Holder's statement in that context it is evident that the administration believes it does have the authority to assassinate an American citizen inside the US.

Paul mentioned a lot of things during the speech but (as noted) it was about one issue. As said by Paul

" 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". I personally would removed the words "by a drone" but hey, that's just me.

The filibuster was about due process and its relation to drone strikes and Brennan's nomination, so of course using "drone" is appropriate.

Clearly Paul seems okay with drones being used as intended on foreign soil on suspected terrorists. He's called for the use of drones on the border. If he wants more oversight-THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE NOMINEE BRENNEN HAS SAID HE WANTS TO DO. Move it from the CIA to DOD. If it was about due process- he didn't need drones to start the conversation. If it was about action- where is the legislation (although he did introduce after the fact)

Yes, he is okay with drone use in US airspace, as evidenced by previous legislation (legalizing use of drones with a warrant) and his calls for using them on the border. Speaking of needing to explain things as though you were talking to a child... Brennan is the mastermind of the drone program, so it is perfectly appropriate to use the drone issue as the headline act.

One ridiculous, sensationalized, unlikely, "hasn't even come close to happening" issue. And as soon as the White House clarifies it further for him. Paul fucking rolled over! Some hero.

An American citizen has been declared an enemy combatant and deprived of his rights. In America. http://en.wikipedia....illa_(prisoner)

Two other American citizens have been declared enemy combatants and then murdered. It's hardly ridiculous or sensationalized to raise concerns about the logical conclusion of these actions.

However, as noted, Rand Paul is no hero on this issue, and his milquetoast attack on executive authority attests to that. But I didn't call him a hero or claim his actions to be heroic, so this is irrelevant.

I've read Greenwald but that doesn't mean I need to worship him.

Try harder next time.

Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

 

ThroneofSeth.png


#35 granturismo  

granturismo

Posted 10 March 2013 - 03:43 PM

It still amazes me we've moved from the George Bush's Constitutional violations to this, Constitutional violations by a supposed Constitutional lawyer.
In fact on the drone issue Obama behaves like a fucking king. "Don't question me!!! I'm your President!!!!"(see: King in his behavior). It doesn't help that people like Bradley Manning have seen maximum charges being levied against them for just embarrassing our country in face. As an American I don't give a RATS ASS if my country(see: senators and others in government) are embarrassed by leaked material. Embarrassment alone does not make a set of documents confidential.
I imagine one day, if Eric Holder's policy stands true, I'll be vacationing overseas and be shot dead by a drone on a bullshit terrorist charge(see: disagreeing with our President/perhaps King at the time). Honestly, all of this information on drones and their abilities should terrify people. Besides the complete invasion of privacy considering we're talking fully roving cameras, it's only a matter of time, if you're lucky they'll arrest on some bullshit trumped up charge.
Heck when Obama's term is over will it truly be over? All my parents do is shrug their shoulders about this shit because they're Democrats. Well my mom says, "I know you feel strongly about this.". I don't think she fucking understands, most every "Freedom Of Speech" is being effected short of "Freedom Of Religion" and possibly "Right To Petition". What will happen with "Freedom Of Assembly" when people peaceably assemble and protest? People just shrug their shoulder and are fucking resigned. Jeez people, stop being so high, wake up out of your daze and shout this nonsense down.
edit: Hopefully since there are other jamming devices someone has a drone jamming device you can buy so some government degenerate won't try to play peek in your windows.


I believe most Americans with knowledge and information together would come roundabout to your conclusion. But the nation is polarized with a lot of misinformation, uneducated or uninformed people, spin, allegiance that you get such fierce opinions that allow the government and courts to basically break the law or make up bogus charges if anybody threats the elite establishment way of things.

People have said the police are the biggest gang on the streets for awhile. But if our government act like big terrorists themselves and courts like mafia men really the average mans voice becomes so insignificant. This is why Rand Paul's actions were very important.

#36 usickenme   I'm the a-hole CAGiversary!   2492 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

usickenme

Posted 10 March 2013 - 03:52 PM

blah, blah, blah

Try harder next time.



Speaking of trying hard. You didn't have to...just cutting and pasting Greenwald's most recent (albeit flawed) column wholesale instead of lifting out bits would've saved you a lot of time.

If you want to party because Paul "raised questions on the Senate Floor"...by all means. But I would recommend raising your bar. I was far more happy with the legislation he put forth on Friday after the publicity stunt.

Edited by usickenme, 10 March 2013 - 04:12 PM.


#37 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3812 Posts   Joined 6.7 Years Ago  

Posted 10 March 2013 - 08:37 PM

One of the more important questions to me would be what 'imminent threat' is defined as. THat should've been a more important issue for Paul to go to bat for. But as we've established, apple falls far from the tree.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#38 berzirk   I'm not so serious CAGiversary!   2384 Posts   Joined 6.9 Years Ago  

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:02 PM

Speaking of trying hard. You didn't have to...just cutting and pasting Greenwald's most recent (albeit flawed) column wholesale instead of lifting out bits would've saved you a lot of time.

If you want to party because Paul "raised questions on the Senate Floor"...by all means. But I would recommend raising your bar. I was far more happy with the legislation he put forth on Friday after the publicity stunt.


I think the point for me, and perhaps others who are thankful for what Paul did, is that it at least brought it up, made it a news story, and it even made Holder squirm a little and clean up his statement, then that's a win. It may not be a crushing 36-0 defeat for Holder, maybe a 3-0 Paul win, but he showed how to use the Filibuster properly, and over something that could impact ALL Americans, not just Tea Party, far right conservatives, or registered Republicans. So I do celebrate Paul, but more in an attempt to condemn his colleagues, who didn't have the sack or the motivation to do it, if they wanted clarification. A couple Congressman hashtagging isn't the same as a Senator speaking on the floor about the issue.

Edited by berzirk, 11 March 2013 - 06:21 PM.


#39 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 5.9 Years Ago  

Posted 11 March 2013 - 05:10 PM

Actually I believe Obama said only republicans would be targeted.

Pretty sure I read that somewhere.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#40 irideabike   no show CAGiversary!   6007 Posts   Joined 6.3 Years Ago  

irideabike

Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:12 PM

Actually I believe Obama said only republicans would be targeted.

Pretty sure I read that somewhere.

Maybe we need a stay irrelevant Clak thread to go with the keep it classy threads.

#41 granturismo  

granturismo

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:00 PM

maybe we need a stay irrelevant clak thread to go with the keep it classy threads.


+1

#42 usickenme   I'm the a-hole CAGiversary!   2492 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

usickenme

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:22 PM

....


+1


they must not teach satire in school anymore.

#43 joeboosauce   Snarf! Get in the... CAGiversary!   826 Posts   Joined 6.7 Years Ago  

joeboosauce

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:24 PM

Speaking of trying hard. You didn't have to...just cutting and pasting Greenwald's most recent (albeit flawed) column wholesale instead of lifting out bits would've saved you a lot of time.

If you want to party because Paul "raised questions on the Senate Floor"...by all means. But I would recommend raising your bar. I was far more happy with the legislation he put forth on Friday after the publicity stunt.


I guess everyone should have just STFU and not raised this issue. Even if this so-called publicity stunt raised some publicity on drones. No, no, if you dissent don't bother doing anything at all.
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#44 joeboosauce   Snarf! Get in the... CAGiversary!   826 Posts   Joined 6.7 Years Ago  

joeboosauce

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:26 PM

I think the point for me, and perhaps others who are thankful for what Paul did, is that it at least brought it up, made it a news story, and it even made Holder squirm a little and clean up his statement, then that's a win. It may not be a crushing 36-0 defeat for Holder, maybe a 3-0 Paul win, but he showed how to use the Filibuster properly, and over something that could impact ALL Americans, not just Tea Party, far right conservatives, or registered Republicans. So I do celebrate Paul, but more in an attempt to condemn his colleagues, who didn't have the sack or the motivation to do it, if they wanted clarification. A couple Congressman hashtagging isn't the same as a Senator speaking on the floor about the issue.


This.
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#45 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 5.9 Years Ago  

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:27 PM

they must not teach satire in school anymore.

:rofl: Just ignore them, I have. Perd offers so little as to make me ask why he posts here. Granny here is another bob/knoell clone, we've got plenty of those already.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#46 ID2006   "Klaymen, up here!" CAGiversary!   504 Posts   Joined 8.1 Years Ago  

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:41 PM

I'm confused by some of the reactions here.

I, of course, question Rand's motives and timing, but I support his putting focus on the issue when nearly no one else in Congress has.

#47 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 5.9 Years Ago  

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:00 PM

That seems to be the opinion of quite a few here.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#48 mrsilkunderwear   Just Do It. CAGiversary!   1484 Posts   Joined 5.5 Years Ago  

mrsilkunderwear

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:03 PM

Maybe we need a stay irrelevant Clak thread to go with the keep it classy threads.


I think Clak is the most useless and ignorant person here. Now where is that ignore button?

#49 granturismo  

granturismo

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:27 PM

I think Clak is the most useless and ignorant person here. Now where is that ignore button?


He is too pig headed that is for sure.

#50 Finger_Shocker   CAG Veteran CAGiversary!   813 Posts   Joined 2.2 Years Ago  

Finger_Shocker

Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:03 PM

While the dems used to play fake the outrage while Bush went on his Constitutional rampage, its quite sad and DISTURBING that the Republicans were all but silent and supportive of Obama Constitutional rampage.

Don't worry you no longer have the right to challenge the drone strike, Al Alwaki father petition the court but that didn't stop the USA from killing both Al Alwaki and his 16yr old son..

#51 usickenme   I'm the a-hole CAGiversary!   2492 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

usickenme

Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:07 PM

seeing as how everyone hates the current policy I wonder what you all would like in it's place.

For me, I would like to every drone strike approved by some sort of oversight (congressional group?)

If there was a case where there wasn't time, the White House would have to let the public know after the fact with reasoning why oversight couldn't be obtained.

#52 Finger_Shocker   CAG Veteran CAGiversary!   813 Posts   Joined 2.2 Years Ago  

Finger_Shocker

Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:49 PM

seeing as how everyone hates the current policy I wonder what you all would like in it's place.

For me, I would like to every drone strike approved by some sort of oversight (congressional group?)

If there was a case where there wasn't time, the White House would have to let the public know after the fact with reasoning why oversight couldn't be obtained.


Why is it the POTUS can just order a assassination of any american and it is legal and with no legal ramification, however if a american decided to order a assassination of a gov't official it is a crime?

If a citizen can be assassinated due to treason or attempted treason ( via terrorist acts ), why would gov't officals who knowingly and purposefully attempts to violate the Constitution he/she swore a oath to defend be not held to the same treason offense.

The difference is that the gov't has POWER, AUTHORITY and FORCE to push through treason while those below only can be treason-ous via voice or the last resort violence?

#53 usickenme   I'm the a-hole CAGiversary!   2492 Posts   Joined 11.2 Years Ago  

usickenme

Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:48 PM

so that is a no to drones?

#54 highoffcoffee496   I gotta believe! CAGiversary!   1424 Posts   Joined 2.6 Years Ago  

highoffcoffee496

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:15 AM

I think Clak is the most useless and ignorant person here. Now where is that ignore button?


:lol:

*sits back and waits for the flame war to begin*

Edited by highoffcoffee496, 12 March 2013 - 02:30 AM.

(\__/)
(='.'=)
This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

Posted Image

#55 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2636 Posts   Joined 5.6 Years Ago   Has been playing Diablo III: Ultimate Evil Edition
PS3

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:20 AM

seeing as how everyone hates the current policy I wonder what you all would like in it's place.

For me, I would like to every drone strike approved by some sort of oversight (congressional group?)

If there was a case where there wasn't time, the White House would have to let the public know after the fact with reasoning why oversight couldn't be obtained.


No drone strikes, no war on terror, no assassinations, no secret prisons, no indefinite detention, no exporting torture to foreign countries then claiming we don't torture, no national security state that allows the government to look at whatever it wants, all sanctions immediately nullified and diplomatic relations with all nations returned to normal status, and all foreign aid ended. If someone is found to have been material to an operation that took lives and that individual resides in a foreign country, then the M.O. should be to work with the country in which that person resides to arrest him and bring him here for trial in a civilian court.

In addition to this, several carriers would be immediately sent to the Middle East, and troop withdrawal from all bases, outposts, and occupations would begin. Once bases and outposts are vacated, they would be shut down and the land and anything left on it returned to the host country. Upon arrival in the US, said carriers and troops would be decommissioned immediately.

Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

 

ThroneofSeth.png


#56 joeboosauce   Snarf! Get in the... CAGiversary!   826 Posts   Joined 6.7 Years Ago  

joeboosauce

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:29 PM

No drone strikes, no war on terror, no assassinations, no secret prisons, no indefinite detention, no exporting torture to foreign countries then claiming we don't torture, no national security state that allows the government to look at whatever it wants, all sanctions immediately nullified and diplomatic relations with all nations returned to normal status, and all foreign aid ended. If someone is found to have been material to an operation that took lives and that individual resides in a foreign country, then the M.O. should be to work with the country in which that person resides to arrest him and bring him here for trial in a civilian court.

In addition to this, several carriers would be immediately sent to the Middle East, and troop withdrawal from all bases, outposts, and occupations would begin. Once bases and outposts are vacated, they would be shut down and the land and anything left on it returned to the host country. Upon arrival in the US, said carriers and troops would be decommissioned immediately.


Great wish list. I'd support this if it were not kept off the table by the powers that be. There is support from a majority of the population to deescalate our interventionism. But, hey, what does the citizenry matter when you have multinational corporations who want to go in the opposite direction?
Posted Image

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

#57 granturismo  

granturismo

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:31 PM

It's the citizens who pay for it as well. If a war happens, who pays for it? Who has to fight in it? It's disgusting.

#58 Spokker   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2141 Posts   Joined 9.5 Years Ago  

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:06 PM

No drone strikes, no war on terror, no assassinations, no secret prisons, no indefinite detention, no exporting torture to foreign countries then claiming we don't torture, no national security state that allows the government to look at whatever it wants, all sanctions immediately nullified and diplomatic relations with all nations returned to normal status, and all foreign aid ended. If someone is found to have been material to an operation that took lives and that individual resides in a foreign country, then the M.O. should be to work with the country in which that person resides to arrest him and bring him here for trial in a civilian court.

In addition to this, several carriers would be immediately sent to the Middle East, and troop withdrawal from all bases, outposts, and occupations would begin. Once bases and outposts are vacated, they would be shut down and the land and anything left on it returned to the host country. Upon arrival in the US, said carriers and troops would be decommissioned immediately.

Clear, concise and perfect.

#59 UncleBob  

Posted 13 March 2013 - 12:26 AM

No drone strikes, no war on terror, no assassinations, no secret prisons, no indefinite detention, no exporting torture to foreign countries then claiming we don't torture, no national security state that allows the government to look at whatever it wants, all sanctions immediately nullified and diplomatic relations with all nations returned to normal status, and all foreign aid ended. If someone is found to have been material to an operation that took lives and that individual resides in a foreign country, then the M.O. should be to work with the country in which that person resides to arrest him and bring him here for trial in a civilian court.

In addition to this, several carriers would be immediately sent to the Middle East, and troop withdrawal from all bases, outposts, and occupations would begin. Once bases and outposts are vacated, they would be shut down and the land and anything left on it returned to the host country. Upon arrival in the US, said carriers and troops would be decommissioned immediately.


I agree with all of this except the "end all foreign aid" part.

I do feel that most foreign "aid" should be ended, but there are situations (like, say, the Haitian quake) where we need to step up and help out. But, there needs to be a clear plan in place for getting in, getting the aid to the people who need it and getting out.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#60 egofed   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   983 Posts   Joined 8.5 Years Ago  

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:08 AM

I agree with all of this except the "end all foreign aid" part.

I do feel that most foreign "aid" should be ended, but there are situations (like, say, the Haitian quake) where we need to step up and help out. But, there needs to be a clear plan in place for getting in, getting the aid to the people who need it and getting out.



Only if it doesn't add to our debt would I agree. Currently we borrow .46 of every gov't dollar spent. Justifying adding more debt to our own country to help another sovereign nation goes against the protection of the US that politicians swear to. Times of war could sometimes be excused, but disaster relief needs to be on a volunteer and charity based program for other countries. If we could get our act together and run a surplus again, then I'm all for helping out with tax money.