Take note of who disagreed with Rand Paul

[Sacajawea]

Whether its a drone, an abrams, or an assault rifle, it is still a weapon of war being wielded against our own people.

This is a larger issue than the type of hardware used, but in how much power the executive branch/overall government is trying to exert onto us.

Thanks for getting back on topic. The topic is DUE PROCESS. It's what has always made the US different from other countries -- even when it was just lip service.

Since it's so hard to get a straight answer from anyone in this administration... the concern has to be how they define who is an "enemy combatant"... and this also, more importantly and unfortunately, overlaps with other great contentious issue of the day: RKBA.

The media has been trying to poke fun at Rand for jumping to extreme, tin-foil conclusions. Even the way Holder's letter to Rand, answering the question with a simple "no" (finally) is suggesting that they believe this concern is way out there in crazy-land. It was absolutely a legitimate question and drawing a line in the sand.

But my problem with the whole thing is due process - and the fact that they will define the rules of engagement, and definition of "immanent threat" and "enemy combatant" any f'ng way they choose. Conversely: the real terrorist - kin to Osama - that they've decided to give US citizen rights of due process to trial to... was a legitimate enemy combatant, apprehended in another country. He ain't eligible to be tried in our criminal court system.

What kind of double standard is this?
And yes, I'm going to start doubling up on my tin-foil stock this weekend. And I'm starting to dig the moat, too.

[mikea]

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

Me too. The tumor is the Democrat/Republican Party.

I agree that the Democrat/Republican parties are two sides of the same coin.
Rand Paul is a Libertarian in all definitions of the word but is a Republican. WHY?
Because he can't win an election as a Libertarian.
Until Libertarians win 5% of the votes at a presidential election, there will still be a 2 party system. Once 5% is achieved, then we can go to a 3rd party system.
He's got a very good chance of being the 2016 Republican nominee.
Would you vote for him? I would.

[aramchek]

Good point. Probably the very reason we survived is that we forbade a tyrannical government from doing that sort of thing without CIVILIAN due process and check-and-balance.

Why are we supposed to be worried about terrorists? A threat to our lifestyle? Our freedoms and democracy maybe? So we're to destroy these things in order to save them... Makes about as much sense as a box of rocks.

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

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

[querulous]

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?

this spade guy is a troll. same tired argument. "if we don't allow the use of drones, half the US would be blown up." sounds like, "if we don't invade iraq, half of the US would be blown up."

strangely, we have manged to survive without the use of domestic drones up to this point.

but you know what actually encourages "them" to blow things up in our country? using drones in their countries, whimsically bombing people who have never been proven to actually be terrorists. as far as the US gov is concerned, anyone with brown skin living in the middle east is a terrorist.

it's as simple as this: if i walked up to you on the playground when we were kids and just started pummeling you to the ground because i made the determination that you were a threat to my friends, without proof, and ended up killing you, you'd be OK with it? you'd encourage that? no, you'd probably want to confront your accuser and have a chance to prove your innocence. because that is the crux of this whole thing.

[querulous]

edit:

"if we don't allow the use of domestic drones, half the US would be blown up..."

that is a fear-based "argument," if one could call it an argument at all. i don't have much confidence in someone's critical thinking skills if they cannot make this determination and likewise dismiss the thought as nothing more than threatening violence to obtain an objective. that is almost terrorism in and of itself.

[Basic Human Unit]

Originally Posted by mikea

I agree that the Democrat/Republican parties are two sides of the same coin.
Rand Paul is a Libertarian in all definitions of the word but is a Republican. WHY?
Because he can't win an election as a Libertarian.
Until Libertarians win 5% of the votes at a presidential election, there will still be a 2 party system. Once 5% is achieved, then we can go to a 3rd party system.
He's got a very good chance of being the 2016 Republican nominee.
Would you vote for him? I would.

Not as a Republican. I might have voted for Ron Paul as a Republican, but Rand has peddled the party kool-aid once too often. I won't trust him unless he drops out of the party.

[querulous]

Originally Posted by Basic Human Unit

Not as a Republican. I might have voted for Ron Paul as a Republican, but Rand has peddled the party kool-aid once too often. I won't trust him unless he drops out of the party.

i agree on rand. i'm very on the fence about him. on the one hand, i realize he's a beltway politician. on the other, i did respect what he did this last week and the US is in desperate need of a true statesman who actually respects the People. you'd think ron paul's son might be a good candidate for that, but his voting record up to this point would lead me to believe otherwise.