• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator Rand Paul's Epic Filibuster: Reads 'Alice in Wonderland'

1. Source? If he won't then he doesn't need the drones or the power to do so.

2. Really? You won't care until its too late?

1. A drone strike could have prevented 9/11. Sure it would have killed all the people on board the planes, and the Administration could have been accused of "Taking the rights away from US citizens" But, as soon as the terrorists board that plane, they were dead anyway! You need to make tough decisions in war. As I mentioned in my post, this is a crazy hypothetical situation that may or may not happen once per administration...and it hasn't ever happened yet. So who's to say it will?

2. Too late for what? What are you suggesting that Obama is going to target my house??:scared: I have nothing to fear from drones and neither should you!
 
Good on him, this drone **** is getting old. It's one thing to go after terrorists, but a drone should never fly over American soil.

Exactly what is the difference between a pilot flying a plane over this country and a pilot controlling a plan from the ground that is flying over this country?
 
Filibuster is over. Rand Paul made the comment that there were things he had no control over, such as needing to go to the bathroom, and it drew a good laugh from everybody.

Anyways, Rand, you fought the good fight. I commend you.
 
Despite cheers from all members of the paranoid conspiracy minded morons who think they follow politics, Rand Paul's filibuster included him eating dinner reading Alice in Wonderland as well as eating various candy bars while joking with Marco Rubio about water... President Obama and Eric Holder were laughing throughout the whole debacle because the very question that Rand Paul spent 14 hours trying to ask, was already answered numerous times by the Administration. President Obama will NOT use Drones on US Citizens. There will be no circumstances where this will be needed! Unless if there is a 9/11 style attack, and then all you libertarians would want them blown out of the sky and will be accusing the Obama Administration of stalling and/or working with the terrorists if it doesn't happen ASAP! You see, he phrases this in a way that makes it seem that Obama is sitting in the oval office and just planning random attacks on random citizens. This was probably more damaging to the Republican Party than George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Oil combined!!! I'm ashamed that more people aren't criticizing Rand Paul for stalling the government for his own personal Television Show!

Let me know when Drones start attacking random people. This falls under black helicopter nonsense.

a 9/11 style attack would include targeting the plane that poses a risk.

we are talking about when drones can be used to kill Americans, not to destroy an Aircraft that has been hijacked and is refusing to be detained.

your deflection is nonsense, as was holders.
 
we are talking about when drones can be used to kill Americans, not to destroy an Aircraft that has been hijacked and is refusing to be detained.

There are American citizens on board the planes or whatever that the terrorists use. So would you want the Obama administration to prevent the death of 3000 Americans as supposed to saving 300?? In the long run, saving those 300 citizens and allowing 3000 more citizens to die while starting two wars and killing 100,000 more US citizens would not be worth saving 300 citizens! Get it? Those are the types of decisions Army Generals make everyday! If Bush had better drone technology like Obama has got now, who knows where this country would be if we had prevented 9/11!!!
 
There are American citizens on board the planes or whatever that the terrorists use. So would you want the Obama administration to prevent the death of 3000 Americans as supposed to saving 300?? In the long run, saving those 300 citizens and allowing 3000 more citizens to die while starting two wars and killing 100,000 more US citizens would not be worth saving 300 citizens! Get it? Those are the types of decisions Army Generals make everyday!
Again, if Americans are killed in an effort to stop an ongoing terrorist plot on our soil, fine.

I don't really believe their policy ends there. The policy to kill Americans abroad doesn't end there, and we only know that because the policy was leaked. Obama has not been forthcoming with the specifics of his drone program at all.

If Bush had better drone technology like Obama has got now, who knows where this country would be if we had prevented 9/11!!!

Bush was using Drones overseas. Lack of military technology was not the reason we failed in prevented 9/11
 
1. Again, if Americans are killed in an effort to stop an ongoing terrorist plot on our soil, fine.

2. I don't really believe their policy ends there.

1. Yes, that's the whole point!

2. So, do you really believe that the Obama Administration will send drones to your house to kill you? If this is the case, you should be able to point to other scenarios where this has happened! You can't.
 
1. Yes, that's the whole point!

You clearly don't know what the point is.

We learned that Obama can create a list of names of Americans targeted to be killed outside of America. These Americans don't need to be planning any terrorist plots. No evidence of any kind is needed. No oversight exists. Obama is judge and jury. (not executioner though, too wussy for that)

2. So, do you really believe that the Obama Administration will send drones to your house to kill you? If this is the case, you should be able to point to other scenarios where this has happened! You can't.

Once a power is recognized, it is never gone. If they claim they have the power, someone, sometime is going to use that power. Maybe not Obama, maybe not the next guy either.
 
Despite cheers from all members of the paranoid conspiracy minded morons who think they follow politics, Rand Paul's filibuster included him eating dinner reading Alice in Wonderland as well as eating various candy bars while joking with Marco Rubio about water... President Obama and Eric Holder were laughing throughout the whole debacle because the very question that Rand Paul spent 14 hours trying to ask, was already answered numerous times by the Administration. President Obama will NOT use Drones on US Citizens. There will be no circumstances where this will be needed! Unless if there is a 9/11 style attack, and then all you libertarians would want them blown out of the sky and will be accusing the Obama Administration of stalling and/or working with the terrorists if it doesn't happen ASAP! You see, he phrases this in a way that makes it seem that Obama is sitting in the oval office and just planning random attacks on random citizens. This was probably more damaging to the Republican Party than George Bush, Sarah Palin, and Oil combined!!! I'm ashamed that more people aren't criticizing Rand Paul for stalling the government for his own personal Television Show!

Let me know when Drones start attacking random people. This falls under black helicopter nonsense.


It isn't about whether or not this administration will use the drones on American citizens. Personally, I don't believe Obama would do it. The question is whether or not it is Constitutional. It clearly violates the 5th Amendment.

What this does is set precedent for a future administration to use these drones on American citizens. We're talking about SUSPECTED enemy combatants...nothing has to be proven....no evidence is required and some soldier with a joystick can press a little red button and that suspect is dead without the rights of due process.

We should always be wary about the power the government tries to yield. Rights of Habeas Corpus should not be infringed upon unless there is an imminent threat which has to be clearly defined.

We must always fight for our rights to liberty no matter how atrocious the crimes maybe...when you take it away...you allow for more to be taken. If we can give trials to former Nazis, Al-Quida, and other terrorists...surely we can to the current crop of terrorists.
 
I fail to see how the issue of John Brennan's nomination as CIA director is relevant to the use of drones within the USA. Don't get me wrong, I think this an important issue that needs to be addressed which could start by revisiting the Posse Comitatus Act
 
I fail to see how the issue of John Brennan's nomination as CIA director is relevant to the use of drones within the USA. Don't get me wrong, I think this an important issue that needs to be addressed which could start by revisiting the Posse Comitatus Act

It isn't. I think that is why Rand only stuck with this filibuster for one day.

As he said previously, presidents generally deserve to have their appointees approved.

The filibuster was simply a way to try to bring this issue to light for more Americans.
 
So, do you really believe that the Obama Administration will send drones to your house to kill you? If this is the case, you should be able to point to other scenarios where this has happened! You can't.

Or Obama can clarify what he believes the limits on his power are by answering a simple question:

Do you, Mr. President, believe you and your administration have the authority to kill by drone an American citizen without due process on American soil?

The obvious answer is NO, yet all we hear from the WH is silence. Why do you defend a WH that refuses to state what the LIMITS of it's power are?
 
I fail to see how the issue of John Brennan's nomination as CIA director is relevant to the use of drones within the USA. Don't get me wrong, I think this an important issue that needs to be addressed which could start by revisiting the Posse Comitatus Act

If you fail to see the connection between John Brennan and the counterintelligence use of drones both in this administration and the Bush administration then you don't know anything about John Brennan. Mr. Brennan is the perfect person to bring to a head the issue of this administration's expanded use of drones and the suggestion that drones may be used in the US to murder one or more US citizens. It is doubly important since drone technology was first developed as part of military weapons development and strategy and has been taken over by the CIA as a tool for counterintelligence.

One of the prime enemies of a strong, vibrant democracy is an ignorant and disinterested public.
 
Yes. To have enemies you have to pose a threat......................I guess threatening the "very foundations of human civilization everywhere" doesn't quite crack it..............LOL...........................

24224.jpg
 
If you fail to see the connection between John Brennan and the counterintelligence use of drones both in this administration and the Bush administration then you don't know anything about John Brennan. Mr. Brennan is the perfect person to bring to a head the issue of this administration's expanded use of drones and the suggestion that drones may be used in the US to murder one or more US citizens. It is doubly important since drone technology was first developed as part of military weapons development and strategy and has been taken over by the CIA as a tool for counterintelligence.

One of the prime enemies of a strong, vibrant democracy is an ignorant and disinterested public.

Brennan stated he does believe the CIA has the authority to kill an American on American soil with a drone.
 
Brennan stated he does believe the CIA has the authority to kill an American on American soil with a drone.

Exactly - tell your compatriots - it's a prime reason why the man is unfit to lead the CIA and a perfect reason to filibuster his nomination in the manner Paul did to bring the issue to the consciousness of the American people.
 
Or Obama can clarify what he believes the limits on his power are by answering a simple question:

Do you, Mr. President, believe you and your administration have the authority to kill by drone an American citizen without due process on American soil?

The obvious answer is NO, yet all we hear from the WH is silence. Why do you defend a WH that refuses to state what the LIMITS of it's power are?

But the answer isn't as simple as no. Many on here have said they welcome the use of a drone strike on a terrorist that has hijacked an airplane or something else. The vehicle that is used by the terrorist to carry out the attack will no doubt have American Citizens on it. Eric Holder said they would only use the drones in that situation. Which has yet to happen! I have no idea what else you want to hear.

This administration has a way with words that tries to keep everything neutral so that it doesn't come back to bite Obama in the *ss. That is true, but if you actually listen to what Holder said, he has already answered your question. The reason Holder hasn't answered the question, "Does the President have the right to target US Citizens on American soil?" with a simple answer like NO. is because this administration believes that there are home grown domestic terrorists here in the US. Obama has warned us about this since 2008. If he answered no, to that question, then he couldn't target those terrorists with drones.
 
Last edited:
Brennan stated he does believe the CIA has the authority to kill an American on American soil with a drone.

Exactly, the CIA has no authority on this matter, multiple CIA sources have confirmed this. That authority rests with Congress.
 
How do you get due process when you are getting shot out of the sky? Just wondering..
 
Exactly, the CIA has no authority on this matter, multiple CIA sources have confirmed this. That authority rests with Congress.

Do think a guy that thinks like Brennan does should have any sort of power? Yes or no.
 
How do you get due process when you are getting shot out of the sky? Just wondering..

We should not allow holder to get away this this form of a deflection.

the president has the authority to use military force to stop an attack against this country, such as when planes are destroying the Pentagon.

drone, or manned fighter jet makes little difference at that point

The issue is using drones to carry out kills on Americans like we have done over seas.
 
Do think a guy that thinks like Brennan does should have any sort of power? Yes or no.

I really don't care or really understand what you mean by power? Brennan of course will have power when he gets in. Are you asking should the CIA have drone access? Yes and I believe they already do. If you are asking should the CIA have the same power Obama wants to target US citizens that are suspected as terrorists? I think that power should be saved for the President and Congress.
 
I really don't care or really understand what you mean by power? Brennan of course will have power when he gets in. Are you asking should the CIA have drone access? Yes and I believe they already do. If you are asking should the CIA have the same power Obama wants to target US citizens that are suspected as terrorists? I think that power should be saved for the President and Congress.

So you are in favor of drone attacks on suspected terrorist that are American citizens? Not proven, but suspected?
 
I disagree with the drone strikes in the US.

The filibuster has always struck me as childish, though.

Is nobody else worried about these warrantless drone strikes?

No due process is a very bad thing for Americans.


How else to raise the issue and public awareness of it? Propose a bill that the military and White House get killed in committee?

Rand Paul just put himself to the clear libertarian and Republican-right forefront, and on an issue that many "liberals" agree with.

His overall pitch is that while people can disagree on economics completely, people should be unified on fundamental basic rights as citizens - and that such rights should be the foremost issues to people even over economic issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom