Take note of who disagreed with Rand Paul

[PalmettoTree]

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

Do you really not see the difference between a 9mm bullet into the chest of a suspect pointing a weapon at an innocent person and a suspect engulfed in a massive explosion while eating his lunch in a crowded restaurant?

There is zero indication that the same set of attack criteria will be used against citizens. Granted Holder is an idiot. The fact that he cannot think on his ass is a far separate issue.

If lethal force is justified by law enforcement and collateral damage can be avoided then drones should be a part of the weapon arsenal.

We would have shot down passenger airlines with military aircraft if necessary during 9-11. The use of drones would be in the FBI arsenal. Their use would be restricted to laws of engagement and certainly would not target as many innocent citizens.

To cloak this argument in a hypothetical of taking out a suspect in a diner is a demonstration of pointless ignorance. It should have neither been ask nor answered.

Should drones have been used at Benghazi against attackers? My answer is yes. In the most unlikely hood if the exact same attack occurred against a rancher in the US by a gang of thugs, should law enforcement be permitted to use drones there also.

[Basic Human Unit]

Originally Posted by PalmettoTree

There is zero indication that the same set of attack criteria will be used against citizens. Granted Holder is an idiot. The fact that he cannot think on his ass is a far separate issue.

If lethal force is justified by law enforcement and collateral damage can be avoided then drones should be a part of the weapon arsenal.

We would have shot down passenger airlines with military aircraft if necessary during 9-11. The use of drones would be in the FBI arsenal. Their use would be restricted to laws of engagement and certainly would not target as many innocent citizens.

'as many'? How many innocent victims is an acceptable number? Under what circumstances would a suspect be putting innocent people or law enforcement officers in imminent danger could be better solved with a massive explosion from the sky than with a long range sniper bullet? Drones are weapons of war. Their purpose is to kill in locations where law enforcement officers cannot go. They aren't weapons of convenience.

Originally Posted by PalmettoTree

To cloak this argument in a hypothetical of taking out a suspect in a diner is a demonstration of pointless ignorance. It should have neither been ask nor answered.

I'm not cloaking anything. That's typically how they are used: When suspects are driving their cars or eating their lunch or praying in a holy place. Drone strikes aren't typically used on people about to shoot other people.

Originally Posted by PalmettoTree

Should drones have been used at Benghazi against attackers? My answer is yes. In the most unlikely hood if the exact same attack occurred against a rancher in the US by a gang of thugs, should law enforcement be permitted to use drones there also.

No. Drones should NOT have been used in Libya. We aren't at war with Libya. Nations have as much right to control their sovereign airspace as we do. Would you want the Chinese operating drones over the USA to take out suspected anti-communist dissidents?

[Captain Worley]

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

If Lindsey Graham, the charming lady from South Carolina thinks it's so ridiculous that drones would be used to kill US citizens on our own soil without due process of law, then why doesn't she introduce a bill that makes it illegal?

Because it already is.

And just because it is illegal, doesn't mean the gov won't find a way to do it if they really desire to do so.

[Captain Worley]

Originally Posted by skorpion317

Just because they're not allowed to, doesn't mean the regime won't try to do so.

I know.

But my point was, it is already illegal.

[Sacajawea]

But my point was, it is already illegal.

Tell that to the US Attorney General, Mr. Holder and Prez Obama, please. They apparently see things differently.

[Mogli]

Originally Posted by delta27

they did mention him...what's your beef?


edit:

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

I didn't see his name in your quote.

Originally Posted by delta27

wasn't my quote....

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

You made the quote in your post. Did someone construct your post for you?

Originally Posted by delta27

I didn't make the quote...it wasn't my post, that's what I was saying....but I did read the article

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

well I didn't. I'd rather choke on vomit than click a Blaze link. I relied on your post. So I apologize to the Blaze for accusing them of leaving out the Democrat's name as part of their narrative. YOU left it out as part of yours.

Edit: Oops. I'm confusing you with Mogli. I don't understand why you responded the way that you did.

LMAO! You guys took up a whole page arguing over nothing!

Originally Posted by PalmettoTree

There is zero indication that the same set of attack criteria will be used against citizens. Granted Holder is an idiot. The fact that he cannot think on his ass is a far separate issue.

Wow, you trust these guys? With somebody's life without Due Process? I'm glad I'm paranoid.

Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
To cloak this argument in a hypothetical of taking out a suspect in a diner is a demonstration of pointless ignorance. It should have neither been ask nor answered

Is getting sexually abused at the airport and some bus terminals ignorance, fact, or okay?

[aramchek]

After Paul Wellstone was killed just before his reelection, it's pretty clear that the Democratic Party relied on people like him for an image that simply does not pan out any more. No evidence that they are a party of labor/middle-class, the little-guy, peace, civil liberties, etc. It's downright damning that it's come down to Rethugs to defend the 2nd Amendment and what remains of civil liberties in the post-911 world.

But if it were Cheney in office right now, asking for drone attacks, would Rand Paul dare oppose a sitting president in his own party? Maybe, maybe not. Politicians, when it comes to parties, are thick as thieves.

Originally Posted by Mogli

Where are all the democraps?
*

[Planet2022]

Really? Meet with force?

Go take up arms then, if not? Then STFU, I get real sick of people talking big but dont do anything.

[delta27]

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

It's not a news site. It's the journalistic equivalent to pro wrestling. Glenn Beck is a weeping half-man with delusions of relevance because he knows how to cater to his demographic. Regurgitating news from other sources laced with opinions catered to echo the preconceptions of a select group of people doesn't impress me in the slightest.

Glenn Beck is just a slightly more feminine version of Arianna Huffington.

Originally Posted by delta27

<shakes head>


You might actually learn otherwise if you bothered to go to the site, listen to him or watch him...but go ahead and stick with your preconceived notions

Here's a program coming up on TheBlaze (TV) soon that you might be interested in...

http://www.theblaze.com/fortherecord/

You Tube

[delta27]

Originally Posted by aramchek

After Paul Wellstone was killed just before his reelection, it's pretty clear that the Democratic Party relied on people like him for an image that simply does not pan out any more. No evidence that they are a party of labor/middle-class, the little-guy, peace, civil liberties, etc. It's downright damning that it's come down to Rethugs to defend the 2nd Amendment and what remains of civil liberties in the post-911 world.

But if it were Cheney in office right now, asking for drone attacks, would Rand Paul dare oppose a sitting president in his own party? Maybe, maybe not. Politicians, when it comes to parties, are thick as thieves.

You don't have to take his word for it, but yesterday Rand Paul specifically mentioned that he would have.

Ted Cruz in fact recounted yesterday his appearance in front of the Supreme Court (when he was Solicitor General of TX) opposing the UN interference in a death penalty case in TX...which Bush (for political expediency) was on the UN's side of the case. He opposed a sitting President and former Governor of his state....from his own party.

[delta27]

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

If Lindsey Graham, the charming lady from South Carolina thinks it's so ridiculous that drones would be used to kill US citizens on our own soil without due process of law, then why doesn't she introduce a bill that makes it illegal?

Originally Posted by Captain Worley

Because it already is.

And just because it is illegal, doesn't mean the gov won't find a way to do it if they really desire to do so.

RAND PAUL AND TED CRUZ INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT DRONE KILLINGS OF U.S. CITIZENS — READ THE ENTIRE BILL HERE
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ire-bill-here/

[Spade]

I'm for operations in the U S because I know there are terrorists here. Not allowing drones to carry out missions here on our home soil is a mistake. By the time we let either the courts or Congress decide how to remove the terrorists half the country would be blown up. Note how they have solved the budget problem. Are we going to allow them to run free and hide here without taking action?

[delta27]

Originally Posted by Spade

I'm for operations in the U S because I know there are terrorists here. Not allowing drones to carry out missions here on our home soil is a mistake. By the time we let either the courts or Congress decide how to remove the terrorists half the country would be blown up. Note how they have solved the budget problem. Are we going to allow them to run free and hide here without taking action?

who are the terrorists?

according to a memo leaked from DHS (I think, maybe Justice Dept, something like that) they think WE are (vets, constitutionalists, preppers...)

[Mogli]

Originally Posted by Spade

I'm for operations in the U S because I know there are terrorists here. Not allowing drones to carry out missions here on our home soil is a mistake. By the time we let either the courts or Congress decide how to remove the terrorists half the country would be blown up. Note how they have solved the budget problem. Are we going to allow them to run free and hide here without taking action?

There sure are. Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Holder, Jarret, Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, Anita Dunn. And a bunch more. Thank you for catching that!

[Mogli]

Originally Posted by delta27

who are the terrorists?

according to a memo leaked from DHS (I think, maybe Justice Dept, something like that) they think WE are (vets, constitutionalists, preppers...)

It's a troll blathering all over itself.

[papajoscochise]

Just heard John McCain on the radio dismissing Rand Paul's performance yesterday.....

What a friggin tool McCain has turned out to be! I USED to have respect for the man, he has since lost it and should NOT even call himself a republican anymore.

[mikea]

Originally Posted by Mogli

I have the tiniest speck of hope for our country this morning. Thank you Rand Paul and the other reps who stood up for liberty!

Here Are All the GOP Senators That Participated in Rand Paul’s 12+ Hour Filibuster… and the Ones Who Didn’t

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...nes-who-didnt/



Where are all his bodyguards? Maybe he's not as important as someone like Nancy Pelosi?






Where are all the democraps?


*

He shouldn't have anything to fear as he has not been labeled a traitor.

[patcash]

This morning after his dinner with Obama, Lindsey Graham said there wasn't a lot of difference in him (Graham) and Obama. I think he was referring to the budget, but it was one of those embarrassing moments of truth.

RINOs, take note: Paul stood up for the Constitution.

[Boredom]

Originally Posted by mikea

I didn't mean "WE" as in us here. I meant "WE" as a country.

So did I. The people, nor conservatives, nor republicans, drew this "drone killing of Americans on our own soil" thing out of thin air. It is a reaction to the "opinion" of this administration that it is legal and could be used. As others have stated, the idea of "extraordinary circumstances" was the term they used, but in effect it made clear they see it as a distinct possibility, contrary to the rights enumerated in the constitution. The Obama admin is sticking to their guns on it, or is it drone missiles? Obviously, they take the idea of being able to take out citizens by drone attack as a serious need.

[Basic Human Unit]

Originally Posted by Spade

I'm for operations in the U S because I know there are terrorists here. Not allowing drones to carry out missions here on our home soil is a mistake. By the time we let either the courts or Congress decide how to remove the terrorists half the country would be blown up. Note how they have solved the budget problem. Are we going to allow them to run free and hide here without taking action?

We've survived an awfully long time without drones killing terrorists. WHat do you think will change all of a sudden?