• 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'

Jack Fabulous said:
I would hardly classify anything I said in the post you quoted as "uproar". Concern... yes.
Click to expand...

Nonsense

Rand, and many DPers' have been practically rending their garments because they mistakenly believe that Holder is going to target people who are merely suspected of being terrorists. Their whines have been accompanied with rants about how this is somehow unconstitutional (which is wingnut talk for "I don't like it")


"Engaged in combat" is broad enough to bend around just about any situation where the President would take somebody out. What this seems like is a license to kill people with drones when there is real-time intelligence showing that they are engaged in or about to engage in an act of terror. I just hope they use a little more discretion on American soil and American citizens than they use overseas.
Click to expand...

N, "engaged in combat" is clear and everyone knows what it means. People are just looking for something to bitch about.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Rand Paul is doing the American people a great service today by bringing this issue out of the darkness and shining a bright light on it for all to see.

I find it remarkable that many on the left wanted GW Bush charged with war crimes for authorizing the waterboarding of known terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks and had other plans in the works yet they blindly and without concern or comment give Obama a pass on the murder of Americans and others with drones in many sovereign countries and now, incredibly, suggests that it is possible to authorize the murder of an American citizen, on American soil, using a drone.

Weren't these same people moaning not four years ago that terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay, terrorists caught on the battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq and other sites, needed to be provided the full benefit of America's constitutional law, due process, habeas corpus, and full trials in the continental USA under your system of justice. Now, apparently, it's okay for one man, potentially sitting in a golf cart, to approve the direct murder of one of your citizens. What changed?

Disgusting.
Click to expand...

A prisoner of war is different than an enemy combantant. The two are not the same thing. The minute someone surrenders or is captured they are protected under international law.

Regarding the American citizens issue....you obviously don't read anything on the left because there are constant attacks on Obama for targetting US citizens!
 
sangha said:
N, "engaged in combat" is clear and everyone knows what it means. People are just looking for something to bitch about.
Click to expand...
A suspected terrorist could be sitting on a park bench talking on a cell phone about an imminent terrorist operation and he would be considered "engaged in combat".
 
Jack Fabulous said:
A suspected terrorist could be sitting on a park bench talking on a cell phone about an imminent terrorist operation and he would be considered "engaged in combat".
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The law is clear that this person is engaged in a conspiracy and not engaged in combat
 
sangha said:
Terrorists actively engaged in an attack have no right to trial before having their heads blown off.
Click to expand...

And with that reasoning you approve of the DHS spending $433 million more to buy more drones for US domestic usage - in the event Americans are engaging in a terrorist attack within the USA?

Can you think of any senario where, say, an F16 couldn't deal with that has-never-happened situation?

Do you REALLY believe that is what the DHS drones are for? To be ready to attack an American snipering people from a building for terroristic purposes?

That's why the DHS also is purchasing 2700 of these:

DHS-Navistar-MRAP-vehicle.jpg


To deal will all the Americans in the USA engaging in terrorist attacks. Did I get the analysis correct?
 
joko104 said:
And with that reasoning you approve of the DHS spending $433 million more to buy more drones for US domestic usage - in the event Americans are engaging in a terrorist attack within the USA?

Can you think of any senario where, say, an F16 couldn't deal with that has-never-happened situation?

Do you REALLY believe that is what the DHS drones are for? To be ready to attack an American snipering people from a building for terroristic purposes?

That's why the DHS also is purchasing 2700 of these:

DHS-Navistar-MRAP-vehicle.jpg


To deal will all the Americans in the USA engaging in terrorist attacks. Did I get the analysis correct?
Click to expand...

1) Have no problem with that

2) Yes

3) Drones have many uses, many of them non-lethal

4) I have no problem with that either
 
sangha said:
Terrorists actively engaged in an attack have no right to trial before having their heads blown off.
Click to expand...

We are talking about US citizens ACCUSED (aka not convicted) of being terrorists. We have something called the Constitution that protects citizens (and anyone in the US) through due process.
 
iliveonramen said:
Regarding the American citizens issue....you obviously don't read anything on the left because there are constant attacks on Obama for targetting US citizens!
Click to expand...

Granted, there are. I was pleased to hear Bill Press and a few other progressive talk show hosts praising Paul for what he did yesterday. But then we have others who will defend those in their Party (Republican or Democrat) even if they video taped themselves drowning puppies.
 
Geoist said:
We are talking about US citizens ACCUSED (aka not convicted) of being terrorists. We have something called the Constitution that protects citizens (and anyone in the US) through due process.
Click to expand...

Wrong

Criminals engaged in committing criminal acts which endanger others can be shot without having to bring them to trial first.
 
Geoist said:
We are talking about US citizens ACCUSED (aka not convicted) of being terrorists. We have something called the Constitution that protects citizens (and anyone in the US) through due process.
Click to expand...

GWB said at the outset of the War on Terror that it would take us to new and dark places. He saw farther than most.

This is why it is critical to understand that counterterrorism is war, not law enforcement. American citizens, Confederates, were slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands by the federal government 1861-1865.:cool:
 
sangha said:
Wrong

Criminals engaged in committing criminal acts which endanger others can be shot without having to bring them to trial first.
Click to expand...

Gvt has been assassinating people for a long time. Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, everyone holed-up in that compound outside Waco, Chris Dorner...all of them were murdered by cops more so than killed in order to preserve innocent lives under imminent threat or in acts of self-defense. So...it's not like LEO and the GVT have a good track record on this, IMO.
 
sangha said:
Wrong

Criminals engaged in committing criminal acts which endanger others can be shot without having to bring them to trial first.
Click to expand...

No s****. How many times did Paul reiterate the fact that a true imminent threat is not what we're talking about here? You bring up terrorists actively engaged in violent activity as if that is what is being debated. It is not.
 
Geoist said:
No s****. How many times did Paul reiterate the fact that a true imminent threat is not what we're talking about here? You bring up terrorists actively engaged in violent activity as if that is what is being debated. It is not.
Click to expand...

Actually that is exactly what is being debated.

Rands claims to the contrary are just lies that enable his desire to grandstand
 
sangha said:
Actually that is exactly what is being debated.
Click to expand...

Alright point to me specific quotes from Rand stating he doesn't believe we should take out a terrorist actively engaged in violence.
 
sangha said:
Oy vey!

It just goes to show that the uproar has nothing to do with anything Holder or anyone else said. No matter what is said, the wingnuts will claim that they can't be trusted, which shows that their poutrage is just a feeble attempt to link their congenital mistrust of Obama to reality
Click to expand...


I don't know, I believe it is because of reality that I've a congenital mistrust of Government.

you should too.
 
sangha said:
Nice straw man
Click to expand...

I swear, you are the tolliest troll that ever trolled.

A request for facts and evidence is not a strawman. Do you even know what a strawman is?
 
Geoist said:
I swear, you are the tolliest troll that ever trolled.

A request for facts and evidence is not a strawman. Do you even know what a strawman is?
Click to expand...

When you ask for a quote to prove something was said that no one claimed he said you are making a straw man argument
 
sangha said:
1) Have no problem with that

2) Yes

3) Drones have many uses, many of them non-lethal

4) I have no problem with that either
Click to expand...

At least you admit you support expansion of the Department of Homeland Security to having direct decision large scale nationwide military attack capabilities against American civilians - rather than just remaining an intelligence organization as originally designed.
 
sangha said:
When you ask for a quote to prove something was said that no one claimed he said you are making a straw man argument
Click to expand...

I stated: "You bring up terrorists actively engaged in violent activity as if that is what is being debated."

You said: "Actually that is exactly what is being debated."

So please point to me where Senator Paul was debating this.
 
Geoist said:
I stated: "You bring up terrorists actively engaged in violent activity as if that is what is being debated."

You said: "Actually that is exactly what is being debated."

So please point to me where Senator Paul was debating this.
Click to expand...

A: he wasn't. In fact, he explicitly stated that he wasn't debating that, that no one was debating that.


do I get a prize? :D
 
cpwill said:
A: he wasn't. In fact, he explicitly stated that he wasn't debating that, that no one was debating that.


do I get a prize? :D
Click to expand...

Here+_846be061a4b1f1985195b8d434e51364.jpg
 
calamity said:
Gvt has been assassinating people for a long time. Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, everyone holed-up in that compound outside Waco, Chris Dorner...all of them were murdered by cops more so than killed in order to preserve innocent lives under imminent threat or in acts of self-defense. So...it's not like LEO and the GVT have a good track record on this, IMO.
Click to expand...

The ex-cop shot himself, right?
 
ecofarm said:
The ex-cop shot himself, right?
Click to expand...
After the cabin was set on fire, he took a bullet to the head. Whether it was self inflicted or not has not been 100% verified. But, let's say he did. They still burned the cabin with the intention of burning him alive or forcing him out to be shot dead. They certainly made no attempt to wait him out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom