filibuster based on drone strikes.

[Ceratisa]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/28777/rand-paul-filibuster -live-stream-senator-plans-to-talk-for-hours-during-brennan-
floor-debate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibuste r_n_2819740.html

This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue, this is a constitutional issue. Killing non-combatant American citizens on U.S. soil without respecting the 5th amendment is not constitutional.

And like I said, this isn't a party issue.

This guy has been talking for nearly 8 hours?

Specifically asked about drone strikes on U.S. citizens who are not a danger to the U.S. or her people.
They didn't answer, they answered a different question that wasn't asked.

[Warforger]

He asked Obama, this John Brennan guy is just someone he takes his pain on. As far as I know the CIA can't do anything like that because it doesn't have domestic jurisdiction, so there's no way Brennan will ever be in a position to do so. I get what Rand Paul is doing is noble here but his overall agenda is just bad. He has that same idealistic Libertarian view of foreign policy as his dad. The truth for the most part is that the executive has expanded many powers and Congress has authorized it, but the Executive doesn't really utilize most of them. Rand Paul should at least filibuster the confirmation of the new Attorney General at least, the CIA can't kill American citizens on American soil.

I remember watching Rand Paul try to pass a bill to cut foreign aid, the two Senators who know their shit about foreign policy i.e. John Kerry and John McCain shot it down. I think only 6 Senators voted for it.

[Ceratisa]

At 3/6/13 08:52 PM, Warforger wrote: He asked Obama, this John Brennan guy is just someone he takes his pain on. As far as I know the CIA can't do anything like that because it doesn't have domestic jurisdiction, so there's no way Brennan will ever be in a position to do so. I get what Rand Paul is doing is noble here but his overall agenda is just bad. He has that same idealistic Libertarian view of foreign policy as his dad. The truth for the most part is that the executive has expanded many powers and Congress has authorized it, but the Executive doesn't really utilize most of them. Rand Paul should at least filibuster the confirmation of the new Attorney General at least, the CIA can't kill American citizens on American soil.

I remember watching Rand Paul try to pass a bill to cut foreign aid, the two Senators who know their shit about foreign policy i.e. John Kerry and John McCain shot it down. I think only 6 Senators voted for it.

I understand what you are saying, and I understand this is directed more and Holder and Obama, but what he is saying is correct. The idea that our President is not willing to say he would not direct a drone strike on a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who was not currently a danger to the U.S. or her people. A person who may not even be confirmed to be plotting against the United States, may be killed on without due process.

The language of the law and Holder's interpretation just don't match
The redefined language changed imminent and threat

"Imminent threat" was redefined, and their current definition of "imminent threat" is in no way how you or I would define "imminent"

He has stated he is okay with lethal force being used on combatants or those actively endangering the U.S. its citizens. (Bullets or Drones were mentioned)
He isn't against this at all.

[Ceratisa]

At 3/6/13 08:52 PM, Warforger wrote: Rand Paul should at least filibuster the confirmation of the new Attorney General at least, the CIA can't kill American citizens on American soil.

And on this, neither can the military according to the law.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/6/13 09:46 PM, Ceratisa wrote: And on this, neither can the military according to the law.

With some exceptions, but those are very hard to trigger. (open invasion and whatnot)

[Ceratisa]

At 3/6/13 10:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/6/13 09:46 PM, Ceratisa wrote: And on this, neither can the military according to the law.

With some exceptions, but those are very hard to trigger. (open invasion and whatnot)

Yes, but you understand what I'm saying and this isn't what they are talking about.

[Ceratisa]

And it is over, for today. Gun violence up next.

[Korriken]

It's ok guys, there is a video on how to survive an Obama Drone Strike

just follow these simple tips to ensure the drones do not target you.

[Warforger]

The part I don't get when a new technology arises is where people are frightened that it kills people. Hello, that's the point of the military, why are drone strikes in particular so much different than having a special forces? Stealth fighters? Police force? Why was the nuclear bomb such a big deal? Conventional bombing did even more damage during WWII. Likewise if we're using these standards Drone strikes are a step forward since they tend to kill less civilians than alternative forms of attack.

But going back to the overall premise, the government can already kill people running from the law to begin with if they resist. If for example someone is holding hostages the military would send snipers to kill him etc. etc.. How are Drone strikes different from that?

[Ceratisa]

At 3/7/13 01:37 AM, Warforger wrote: The part I don't get when a new technology arises is where people are frightened that it kills people. Hello, that's the point of the military, why are drone strikes in particular so much different than having a special forces? Stealth fighters? Police force? Why was the nuclear bomb such a big deal? Conventional bombing did even more damage during WWII. Likewise if we're using these standards Drone strikes are a step forward since they tend to kill less civilians than alternative forms of attack.

It isn't about killing people, it is about a violation of the 5th amendment. Drones are simply the new platform for which these assassinations can take place. Please stop distracting from the point. Only one real question was being asked, and I've already said it.

But going back to the overall premise, the government can already kill people running from the law to begin with if they resist. If for example someone is holding hostages the military would send snipers to kill him etc. etc.. How are Drone strikes different from that?

But that isn't what is being said at all Warforger. And I've already said it wasn't. I've already said THEY weren't talking about that.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/7/13 02:52 AM, Ceratisa wrote: It isn't about killing people, it is about a violation of the 5th amendment. Drones are simply the new platform for which these assassinations can take place. Please stop distracting from the point. Only one real question was being asked, and I've already said it.

Simple break down of rules here:
Non-combatant citizen on US soil = 5th Amendment and Passe Comitatus violation
Non-combatant citizen on foreign soil = 5th Amendment violation
Non-Combatant non-citizen on US soil = Passe Comitatus violation
Non-Combatant non-citizen on foreign soil = Likely Geneva (or related) Convention
Comatant on US soil = Passe Comitatus violation (unless exception triggered)
Combatant on foreign soil = no violation, so long as military force authorized by Congress.

[BrianEtrius]

At 3/7/13 01:37 AM, Warforger wrote: The part I don't get when a new technology arises is where people are frightened that it kills people. Hello, that's the point of the military, why are drone strikes in particular so much different than having a special forces? Stealth fighters? Police force? Why was the nuclear bomb such a big deal? Conventional bombing did even more damage during WWII. Likewise if we're using these standards Drone strikes are a step forward since they tend to kill less civilians than alternative forms of attack.

Look at it this way too: how many SEALs did we send in to get Bin Laden? I think the count was close to 80. Granted, this was Bin Laden, but even if the group was 1/5 it's original size that's still over 10 lives being put in danger instead of piece of technology of which the basic components are probably known by most foreign intelligence agencies already. Long story short, why waste human resources at this point when we can use technology?

Furthermore, this has been going on since 2009, and there wasn't as big of a huff back then either. The joke of the matter is that both parties, even though they'll never admit to it, agree on this issue on using drones: Dems because there's direction intervention without the risk of human life and Republicans because we're maintaining that aggressive foreign policy.

Say what you want about the ethical and legal issues, but drone warfare is here to stay and is the future of how we'll maintain safety in peacetime.

Obligatory Terminator/1984 joke

[Ceratisa]

At 3/7/13 11:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/7/13 02:52 AM, Ceratisa wrote: It isn't about killing people, it is about a violation of the 5th amendment. Drones are simply the new platform for which these assassinations can take place. Please stop distracting from the point. Only one real question was being asked, and I've already said it.

Simple break down of rules here:
Non-combatant citizen on US soil = 5th Amendment and Passe Comitatus violation
Non-combatant citizen on foreign soil = 5th Amendment violation
Non-Combatant non-citizen on US soil = Passe Comitatus violation
Non-Combatant non-citizen on foreign soil = Likely Geneva (or related) Convention
Comatant on US soil = Passe Comitatus violation (unless exception triggered)
Combatant on foreign soil = no violation, so long as military force authorized by Congress.

I understand the rules just fine. I'm not sure about the point of your post unless you are just putting the information out there. I've already stated the question was about Non-combatant citizens on U.S. soil. Not my words, just the question that was asked.
Paul, who led the marathon session on the Senate floor that officially ended Thursday afternoon, said he was satisfied with a response from the Justice Department over whether the president has the authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil. Attorney General Eric Holder said firmly that he did not.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/07/senate-clear s-way-for-brennan-confirmation/?hpt=hp_t1

I think demanding for clarification when it is something like this, is more important then business as usual in Washington. But that is my personal opinion based on what had previously been said.

But this all passed, he got the answer he wanted. The specific question he asked, was answered.

The only semi interesting news is N.K. right now imho. But even that has been done before, admittedly with less nuclear weapons.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/7/13 05:11 PM, Ceratisa wrote: the question was about Non-combatant citizens on U.S. soil

The key issue here is the definition of "combatant".

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/8/13 02:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/7/13 05:11 PM, Ceratisa wrote: the question was about Non-combatant citizens on U.S. soil

The key issue here is the definition of "combatant".

FUCK ERIC HOLDER

...am I an enemy of the state?

[Camarohusky]

At 3/8/13 09:54 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: FUCK ERIC HOLDER

...am I an enemy of the state?

No, just a fool for asking.

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/9/13 11:46 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/8/13 09:54 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: FUCK ERIC HOLDER

...am I an enemy of the state?

No, just a fool for asking.

So where do you think the fool line becomes the imminent threat line?

[Camarohusky]

At 3/10/13 11:57 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: So where do you think the fool line becomes the imminent threat line?

At the line of an actual threat, not just partisan fuckery.

[Ceratisa]

At 3/10/13 05:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/10/13 11:57 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: So where do you think the fool line becomes the imminent threat line?

At the line of an actual threat, not just partisan fuckery.

Wrong, that was not what was defined, stop changing what was actually said. It wasn't partisan.

[Warforger]

At 3/7/13 02:52 AM, Ceratisa wrote: It isn't about killing people, it is about a violation of the 5th amendment. Drones are simply the new platform for which these assassinations can take place. Please stop distracting from the point. Only one real question was being asked, and I've already said it.

The thing is that whether it's a drone strike or not shouldn't matter. The government has always been able to kill people and drone strikes get treated unfairly just for that.

But that isn't what is being said at all Warforger. And I've already said it wasn't. I've already said THEY weren't talking about that.

The question then should be whether or not the US government or state governments can kill someone without due process, at this point there are several scenario's where this has happened like say in a rebellion or a wanted fugitive or a guy who's shooting up a mall.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Filibuster is over the government said they wont use armed drones on us soil (minus training exercise to train new pilots and weaponry) so that must put a real hamper on Obama's kill list.

[Ceratisa]

At 3/10/13 09:07 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 3/7/13 02:52 AM, Ceratisa wrote: It isn't about killing people, it is about a violation of the 5th amendment. Drones are simply the new platform for which these assassinations can take place. Please stop distracting from the point. Only one real question was being asked, and I've already said it.

The thing is that whether it's a drone strike or not shouldn't matter. The government has always been able to kill people and drone strikes get treated unfairly just for that.

But that isn't what is being said at all Warforger. And I've already said it wasn't. I've already said THEY weren't talking about that.

The question then should be whether or not the US government or state governments can kill someone without due process, at this point there are several scenario's where this has happened like say in a rebellion or a wanted fugitive or a guy who's shooting up a mall.

If you paid attention he said he didn't care of it was a drone of a bullet. The focus around drones was based on the statement that drones could be used like that.
And no, they specifically said over and over again this wasn't about people who could be considered combatants.
You are basically talking about a different subject.

[Camarohusky]

At 3/10/13 08:16 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Wrong, that was not what was defined, stop changing what was actually said. It wasn't partisan.

Sorry, but saying "fuck Eric Holder" when Eric Holder bashing is a very popular trend amongs partisan groups is just partisan fuckery. Merely talking bad about a government official never will count as an imminent threat and you know it.

At 3/10/13 09:52 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: that must put a real hamper on Obama's kill list.

Just like a ban on sliding on dunes will hurt a snowboarder's trip to the slopes.

[Warforger]

At 3/10/13 10:17 PM, Ceratisa wrote: If you paid attention he said he didn't care of it was a drone of a bullet. The focus around drones was based on the statement that drones could be used like that.
And no, they specifically said over and over again this wasn't about people who could be considered combatants.
You are basically talking about a different subject.

Oh please you know that it's about Drones, if drones hadn't been around you know this filibuster wouldn't have happened and no one would have challenged the President's ability to kill citizens without due process on US Soil.

[Ceratisa]

At 3/11/13 12:22 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 3/10/13 10:17 PM, Ceratisa wrote: If you paid attention he said he didn't care of it was a drone of a bullet. The focus around drones was based on the statement that drones could be used like that.
And no, they specifically said over and over again this wasn't about people who could be considered combatants.
You are basically talking about a different subject.

Oh please you know that it's about Drones, if drones hadn't been around you know this filibuster wouldn't have happened and no one would have challenged the President's ability to kill citizens without due process on US Soil.

If drones hadn't been specifically mentioned by Holder it wouldn't of been the focus. And the bull you are trying to pass is in direct conflict with what was said by more then one Senator.

[Ceratisa]

At 3/10/13 11:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/10/13 08:16 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Wrong, that was not what was defined, stop changing what was actually said. It wasn't partisan.

Sorry, but saying "fuck Eric Holder" when Eric Holder bashing is a very popular trend amongs partisan groups is just partisan fuckery. Merely talking bad about a government official never will count as an imminent threat and you know it.

I misunderstood you then and I apologize, you are right at least currently in this country. (We can't know the future)