• 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'

I don't see how your previous comment applies to the left.

And the left has been critical of Obama over many issues. The left doesn't like Obama and his centrism

I think they're about to not like him a lot more, in general and especially if he acts on Iran. Like the first rumblings of the Tea Party, when repubs began to speak out against Bush's spending.
 
No, the letter clearly does not allow killing people based on suspicion. That is just hysterical BS
How do they propose to move beyond "suspicion" without due process? That's what I'd like to know.
 
I think they're about to not like him a lot more, in general and especially if he acts on Iran. Like the first rumblings of the Tea Party, when repubs began to speak out against Bush's spending.

Ahh, I see now.

But I doubt it. The left hasn't ever liked Obama.
 
Not really. Though the question Rand asked was not limited to any particular circumstance, the answer given by Holder clearly does limit the use of drones to only the most exceptional circumstances and does limit itself to attacks in progress.




No, the letter clearly does not allow killing people based on suspicion. That is just hysterical BS


As a matter of policy. Rand asked as a matter of law. Policies can change at the discretion of the executive. He doesn't have that flexibility with laws.
 
Not really. Though the question Rand asked was not limited to any particular circumstance, the answer given by Holder clearly does limit the use of drones to only the most exceptional circumstances and does limit itself to attacks in progress.




No, the letter clearly does not allow killing people based on suspicion. That is just hysterical BS

I actually think you really do understand the issue, but duck it. The question is whether there is a necessity of imminent danger of lose of life - as opposed to someone believed to be a terrorist planning some attack in the future.

It is the difference between shooting a robbery running into a store with a gun, versus the police snipering someone learning the person is planning a robbery. And I think you know that too - and oppose it - but are irritated when actual Democrat officials are mentioned in the criticism.

I don't care for Rand Paul (until now) and openly despised his father intensely. But there is no change from his stance on such topics as this regardless of partisanship. The Pauls - neither of them - EVER supported the Patriot Act or any other policies similar to it. There is no hypocrisy on his part, nor on those of the "rightwing" who also opposed them. Grab hold of your seat, but I've always opposed the Patriot Act - initially a Bush creation and since expanded under Obama in power, size and manpower scope.
 
The same way cops do when they see someone shooting people. They don't hold a trial before blowing the shooters head off.

The problem with suspicion and drones comes when there isn't substantial evidence...but the executive moves ahead with the strike anyway...there are no arrests or chance of surrender with drones. It is execution. We have a history of giving due process to the most heinous people to ever live.

We cannot condone using drones on citizens in this country just on suspicion.
 
The same way cops do when they see someone shooting people. They don't hold a trial before blowing the shooters head off.

It's funny seeing how many new faces/paultards have recently signed up here to defend Rand's crazy hysterics. We'll see how long they last.
 
So now it's "hawkish" to say we're going to kill terrorists when they're in the middle of an attack on the US? :screwy


That's not the issue and you know it isn't.
 
The same way cops do when they see someone shooting people. They don't hold a trial before blowing the shooters head off.
This isn't the same thing at all. I have read nothing that says the person "has to be in the act of" committing and act of terror. If this is indeed the case, then I stand corrected. Thus far I have not seen that definition.
 
I actually think you really do understand the issue, but duck it. The question is whether there is a necessity of imminent danger of lose of life - as opposed to someone believed to be a terrorist planning some attack in the future.

No, I'm not ducking it and neither did Holder. He clearly stated that the use of drones would be limited to instances that are truly exceptional, such as 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.

It is the difference between shooting a robbery running into a store with a gun, versus the police snipering someone learning the person is planning a robbery. And I think you know that too - and oppose it - but are irritated when actual Democrat officials are mentioned in the criticism.

And Holder was clear - drones might be used in the former case, but not the latter.
 
The problem with suspicion and drones comes when there isn't substantial evidence...but the executive moves ahead with the strike anyway...there are no arrests or chance of surrender with drones. It is execution. We have a history of giving due process to the most heinous people to ever live.

We cannot condone using drones on citizens in this country just on suspicion.

Drones would not be used based on suspicion. Holder made that clear
 
It's funny seeing how many new faces/paultards have recently signed up here to defend Rand's crazy hysterics. We'll see how long they last.

People like you who simply brush away Paul's words as crazy are part of the problem. You don't see an issue with issues that every American should take seriously.

NDAA provisions, Patriot Act, the Executive Orders....are among many things the government has done to attack our rights to liberty. Yet, you remain hostile to those who actually give it some thought.

America has a tradition of distrust towards the government. To blindly trust that they will do the right thing is beyond the realm of ignorance.
 
I don't see how those #'s contradict my claim about the left

The premise of your position is that Democrats are not the left? You realize that it would be impossible for me to find a "not democrat but left approval rating", right? What do you want, his approval rating among communists?
 
Last edited:
Drones would not be used based on suspicion. Holder made that clear

NDAA provision state otherwise which is a piece of legislation that can be used in these instances.
Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban

I'm not worried so much about this administration, but the precedent it sets for future ones. Suspicion is not enough to kill someone without due process.
 
I have read nothing that says the person "has to be in the act of" committing and act of terror. If this is indeed the case, then I stand corrected. Thus far I have not seen that definition.

It is indeed the case.

Holder to Paul: No drone strikes on non-combatants in U.S.

"It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no."
 
The premise of your position is that Democrats and not the left? You realize that it would be impossible for me to find a "not democrat but left approval rating", right? What do you want, his approval rating among communists?

Yes, that is my premise and I understand the difficulty in coming up with a credible #. However, research would show that the left has been criticizing Obama from the beginning. I doubt it would be hard to find criticism from the left relating to the fact that Obama never fought for single payer, and abandoned the public option.
 
1. People like you who simply brush away Paul's words as crazy are part of the problem. You don't see an issue with issues that every American should take seriously.

2. NDAA provisions, Patriot Act, the Executive Orders....are among many things the government has done to attack our rights to liberty. Yet, you remain hostile to those who actually give it some thought.

3. America has a tradition of distrust towards the government. To blindly trust that they will do the right thing is beyond the realm of ignorance.

1. Oh yeah? Have you not read anything I have talked about on this thread or are you just brushing away my words and claiming that I am part of some problem? Just because libertarians see a problem with this or agree with it doesn't mean I have to! It's amazing that only libertarians are even on this thread. I see very few other leanings on this thread.

2. It is you who assume that I haven't given these any thought for some strange reason. Can't take criticism much?

3. Really? Then why did your heroes the founding fathers create one? Oh yea and questioning the government is amazing even if it is a silly hypothetical open ended scenario....:roll:
 
Yes, that is my premise and I understand the difficulty in coming up with a credible #. However, research would show that the left has been criticizing Obama from the beginning. I doubt it would be hard to find criticism from the left relating to the fact that Obama never fought for single payer, and abandoned the public option.

Well, I was referring to what the rest of us mean when we say 'left', that being the democrat party (and their fringe). If you're going to define "the left" as socialists and communists, to the exclusion of the democrat party, then I don't see the point in your argument at all and it certainly has no bearing whatsoever upon mine.
 
There is NO issue of using deadly force against those doing an attack nor against those imminently undertaking one.

This is the issue. You (or another American sitting beside you) are dining at a sidewalk cafe in San Francisco overlooking the bay. The government - accurately or inaccurately - believes you are planning a terrorist attack in the future. Does the Executive Branch of government have the Constitutional authority to rush in an armed drone to kill you (or the person beside you)?

The Executive Branch and its agencies say yes, but trust them not to use that power wrecklessly. Paul's claim is that this can not be done against Americans on American soil as it violates due process protections.

What has made this topical now is the nomination of a new head of the CIA - who would like be over the agency giving such advice to the President - and the Department of Homeland Security ordering a bunch of such drones for domestic surveillance and usage. It is not Obama being president, just like indefinite imprisonment of Americans without a trial under Bush was not partisan against Bush. At least not to any but hardcore militant political party partisans on both sides.

Are you a militant poliical party affiliation partisan? I'm not.
 
Back
Top Bottom