Comments on: Rand Paul Defends Constitution – Mounts Filibuster Against Drone Use UPDATED

By: bkivey

bkivey — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:44:07 +0000

I have to ask: why are we even here?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:06:08 +0000

Rpaul here is merely a tool. Whether used by evil to destroy or by good to create, remains to be seen. But one man will not destroy or save this country. Not any more.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:04:16 +0000

I remember people telling me that it was Obama making the right “decision” to “kill” terrorists that had American citizenship in Afghanistan. What they didn’t seem to realize was that this ‘right decision’ amounts to the same as a tyrant killing thieves. It doesn’t end there.

When one deals with evil, it never ends there. It’s never about evil people making the “Right decisions” that we should “support” because we are “fellow law abiding Americans”. It’s never about that, because it never ends there.

Not yet though. People have not yet felt the boot on their backs yet. But soon. Soon they will.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:49:13 +0000

John McCain and Lindsey Graham went on the Senate floor today and stabbed Rand Paul in the back!

***

“The entire conservative blogosphere was energized by Rand Paul’s defense of the Constitution, Due Process, and the American people yesterday, and McCain ridicules them as “impressionable libertarian kids”.

Lindsey Graham also chimed in, saying he was “disappointed” with those who joined Paul’s filibuster, and added he would vote to confirm Brennan … because of the filibuster.”

http://menrec.com/video-here-is-what-is-wrong-with-your-gop-today-mccain-tells-rand-paul-to-calm-down/

By: Libby

Libby — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:13:20 +0000

If you watch yesterday’s exchange between Ted Cruz and AG Holder you’ll see why Rand Paul was concerned. In his letter to Paul, and in the video, Holder is intentionally vague and non-committal. Given Obama’s history of running roughshod over the Constitution (1st Amendment – HHS birth control mandate, 2nd Amendment – Fast & Furious, and 4th Amendment – DHS manhandling air travelers), it’s a legitimate concern. In addition, the administration has been performing foreign drone assassinations for years with no outside oversight.
http://tinyurl.com/bctsum3
Holder and other Democrats like Durbin try to distract with mention of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, both instances acts of war by foreigners on US soil. However, we’ve seen the administration (in coordination with the SPLC) repeatedly demonize the Tea Party and other domestic conservative groups as America’s greatest threat. It’s not a giant leap to see the potential for them using these drones in non-9/11 type attacks on US citizens.

By: 94Corvette

94Corvette — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:53:18 +0000

A week or so ago TCM showed “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” along with “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town”. I have “You Can’t Take It With You” on DVD so that week I scored a trifecta. (I must confess, I am a Jean Arthur fan and if you’ve not discovered her wonderful catalog of movies, you’ve really missed something special).
Nearly eighty years ago we were being warned of the corruption and duplicity of our government. Sadly, it has only gotten worse through the years and as I’ve watched even conservative voices prostitute themselves becoming entertainers instead of enlighteners, I’ve grieved. Unless we the people stand up and stop the power grab by both Congress and the Presidency, we are doomed. Can you imagine the response of this administration to the Branch Dividians? It is really disconcerting to realize that the IRS, Homeland Security and other federal agencies have stockpiled 1.6 billion rounds of ammo over the past several months and are now procuring light armored vehicles. If unilateral action against ordinary citizens ‘who may pose a danger’ is accepted, it will stifle honest dissent.
I sent an email to Senator Paul’s office yesterday letting him and his staff know that he has support for what he is trying to do.

By: cerumendoc

cerumendoc — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:39:57 +0000

The real issue is entrusting the current occupants of the executive branch with such power. There are cases in issues of imminent attack where American citizens could be killed on American soil for engaging in an attack on the US. This distinction was not made by the administration and President “I am not a dictator” Obama. This, further, is amid the background of domestic and ostensibly federal law enforcement agencies stocking up on ammunition and now the DHS stocking up on armored vehicles. This doesn’t get into the fact that agencies that don’t have any front line law enforcement duties, such as the Social Security Administration or the Depart of Education have also been stocking up on ammo.

The Constitution makes provisions for a formal armed force–Army and Navy–and conditions for going to war (including insurrections). But, until recently, law enforcement has largely been a local affair. Not the increasing federalization of law and law enforcement (Professor’s Reynolds’ “Ham Sandwich Nation”). Not the increasing militarization of police forces.

For the non-low information voters who care for more than the next free phone and check from the government, the above is becoming increasingly worrisome; even if unfounded rumor.

The President is a citizen, who temporarily holds a job that makes him first among his peers. I think, in picking this issue, Sen. Paul is really addressing the above issues.

By: JKB

JKB — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:58:10 +0000

Rand Paul has done a good thing by doing a standing filibuster. The whining about the filibuster and the droning on by the in-power party over reforming it has been damaged. Don’t like the paper filibuster, then require it to be done the old fashioned way. At a minimum, we might be saved from useless old Senators pontificating while being unwilling to do anything about the “paper” filibuster.

The problem with Holder’s letter is he could not state the matter plainly. Apparently, Ted Cruz did get holder to finally admit that the threat would need to be imminent but this isn’t, apparently, something the Obama Administration thinks about first and foremost. That’s disturbing. They may murder then scramble to create an imminent circumstance. We should also pay attention to their non-imminent “imminent” justifications for drone killings of individuals overseas. We should also keep in mind the justification for drone killing Americans overseas, that they were outside the effective reach of US law enforcement and even military ground units.

So, yes, there are times when deadly force might be justifiable for imminent threats to others (US residents) and the individual is beyond the reach of US law enforcement even with military assistance, i.e., the US is unable to exercise law enforcement in the territory and does not have effective sovereign control.

Take the planes on 9/11 for instance. They were no longer under US sovereign control and beyond the reach of law enforcement and the military ground forces. They posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to others. It could be justified to destroy the planes, willfully killing the terrorists and innocent passengers, American and foreign, under self defense laws as defense of others.

One could conceive that if terrorists had a functional nuclear or biological weapon, premeditated deadly force could be justified under self defense laws, especially against snipers removing sentries (armed or unarmed) to permit entry by ground forces. The threat of detonation would make the threat imminent and the scope of damage would mean death or serious bodily injury not only to the assault force but to others over a wide area as well.

Conversely, the use of a drone to take out a suspected terrorist or radical, and his family, in a remote cabin in Idaho would not be justifiable under US law. It would also be an open admission by the president that the US was unable to exercise sovereign control over that territory nor impose the rule of law. That is, the US government, as well as the State government, do not control the territory even to the extent of deploying armed units to effect the enforcement of US laws.

Apparently, the brainiacs at the Department of Justice are unable to articulate this or unwilling to limit their advice on the use of deadly force to situations justifiable under self defense (defense of others) laws. A sad comment on our law schools, I suppose.

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:34:10 +0000

I’m confused on the particulars here and could use some help.

It’s my understanding that there is no controversy over such things as
- The 9-11 sccenario, where a hijacked airplane is a threat. The military is already fully justified in shooting it out of the sky.
- The suitcase nuke terrorism scenario. The military is fully justified in blowing them up, whether on the road or in a house or dwelling.
And so on. I don’t think there’s any debate over whether to kill an American or foreigner that is an imminent, active military threat. The answer is always yes, they can be summarily killed.

The problem, I think, is that the Obama Executive branch is claiming it can take a non-military threat and decide, entirely within the Executive Branch, that it may use a drone to bomb and kill American citizens. ”Entirely within the Executive Branch” means essentially that the President can simply give a thumbs up or down: judge, jury, executioner. That its justifications for being allowed to do so remain too vague, and thus a violation of the Fifth Amendment: No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Let’s put it this way: At what point would a “current” president have been justified in drone-bombing Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorhn during their activities with the Weather Underground? Robbers on their way to a bank robbery or other large heist? Or having successfully robbed a bank, while fleeing? What if the money was intended to support an insurgency/terrorist operation?

Just because this is high political theater, doesn’t necessarily make it grandstanding. We could use a *lot* more high political theater on the conservative side! I’m tired of the bean counters mumbling their way through bean counter arguments. We want to take strong, compelling, theatrical philosophical stands! We don’t need to produce a frickin’ treatise full of 724 pages of “on the other hand” nitpicking hairsplitting. Sometimes “too simplistic” is perfectly fine for grabbing the American attention span for a few days. Politics *is* theater. I want to see more high drama in support of principled conservative philosophical stands!

I’d love to hear more about what others think about whether this Rand Paul stand is a good one or not. Like I said, I seem to be confused on the issues involved.

Comments on: Rand Paul Defends Constitution – Mounts Filibuster Against Drone Use *UPDATED*

By: bkivey

By: Ymarsakar

By: Ymarsakar

By: JohnC

By: Libby

By: 94Corvette

By: cerumendoc

By: JKB

By: Mike Devx

Comments on: Rand Paul Defends Constitution – Mounts Filibuster Against Drone Use UPDATED