Rand Paul needs to go

PkrBum wrote:Even Soros finds fault with this power... you're behind the progressive curve comrade.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14975-right-wing-crazies-aren%E2%80%99t-crazy-anymore

In a letter to Sen. Paul dated on Monday, Holder said that it was conceivable, “I suppose,” to foresee an “extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate” under U.S. law for the President of the United States to authorize the military to use “lethal force” within the United States.

Responding to Holder’s comments, Sen. Paul issued a statement, in part saying, “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening, it is an affront on the constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

For once, Sen. Paul is absolutely right.

Can you imagine the faux indignation of ultra-liberal meatheads who are doing everything to ignore anything this administration does should a repeat of Kent State happen?

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0504.html

gulfbeachbandit wrote:Has Paul sold guns to drug dealers?
Holder did. And congress just passed a law today making that illegal. Today.
Really?

Fast & Furious....Benghazi...and other questionable decisions made by the cowh and his administration is concerning at least that they could decide if an American citizen(s) should be eliminated...There's no question that a US citizen going abroad and assisting/associating/financing the terrorists and is killed...tough luck for them....It's difficult because don't believe anyone would want to be a sympatizer/defender of terrorists...But...within the US a citizen (no matter how disgusting/criminal) there are rights and legal defense that should be afforded and by using the drone technology there seems to be some steps bypassed within the rights afforded....

nochain wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Even Soros finds fault with this power... you're behind the progressive curve comrade.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14975-right-wing-crazies-aren%E2%80%99t-crazy-anymore

In a letter to Sen. Paul dated on Monday, Holder said that it was conceivable, “I suppose,” to foresee an “extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate” under U.S. law for the President of the United States to authorize the military to use “lethal force” within the United States.

Responding to Holder’s comments, Sen. Paul issued a statement, in part saying, “The U.S. Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening, it is an affront on the constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

For once, Sen. Paul is absolutely right.

Can you imagine the faux indignation of ultra-liberal meatheads who are doing everything to ignore anything this administration does should a repeat of Kent State happen?

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0504.html

Again before more political stones are thrown towards Sen Paul...He spoke out during the Bush Admin about drone strikes without informing or including Congress in the decision...As pointed out not only is he correct but he is consistant on this issue no matter the party in the white house...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/iraq-war-10-years_b_2811160.html

No matter how comforting it may be to believe that it's possible to preempt terrorism or other violent crime, "Minority Report" ability is nothing but fiction. Preemptive prosecutions, roundups for indefinite detention, preemptive drone strikes and preemptive wars are essentially characterized by lack of adequate factual justification.

No one should be surprised that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. None of the hundreds of immigrants detained after 9/11 were ever connected to terrorism; a large percentage of those imprisoned at Guantanamo (for whom bounties were paid) were later cleared, and researchers have found that only 2 percent of those killed by drone bombing are actually high-level Al-Qaida terrorists.

PkrBum wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/iraq-war-10-years_b_2811160.html

No matter how comforting it may be to believe that it's possible to preempt terrorism or other violent crime, "Minority Report" ability is nothing but fiction. Preemptive prosecutions, roundups for indefinite detention, preemptive drone strikes and preemptive wars are essentially characterized by lack of adequate factual justification.

No one should be surprised that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. None of the hundreds of immigrants detained after 9/11 were ever connected to terrorism; a large percentage of those imprisoned at Guantanamo (for whom bounties were paid) were later cleared, and researchers have found that only 2 percent of those killed by drone bombing are actually high-level Al-Qaida terrorists.

Unless under ideal conditions targeting a specific individual or several individuals with a drone strike (missile) can be likened to trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. You MIGHT get the fly but a lot of other stuff is going to be hit too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0fiAibdzHw

nochain wrote:

PkrBum wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/iraq-war-10-years_b_2811160.html

No matter how comforting it may be to believe that it's possible to preempt terrorism or other violent crime, "Minority Report" ability is nothing but fiction. Preemptive prosecutions, roundups for indefinite detention, preemptive drone strikes and preemptive wars are essentially characterized by lack of adequate factual justification.

No one should be surprised that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. None of the hundreds of immigrants detained after 9/11 were ever connected to terrorism; a large percentage of those imprisoned at Guantanamo (for whom bounties were paid) were later cleared, and researchers have found that only 2 percent of those killed by drone bombing are actually high-level Al-Qaida terrorists.

Unless under ideal conditions targeting a specific individual or several individuals with a drone strike (missile) can be likened to trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. You MIGHT get the fly but a lot of other stuff is going to be hit too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0fiAibdzHw

Then why even have a judicial system...correctional system etc., guess some think that this way of the AG and Admin (cowh) is acceptable as to identifying those that need to be eliminated...guess it's cost effective....Is this what the cowh's e-mail about Americans feeling pain was all about?...Maybe he's ready to send in the drones to Chicago to take out a few hundred thugs...

2048 a group of Cuban American Citizens called "Free Miami" have combined with 2,000 armed Cuban nationals and taken over the City of Miami using surprise air strikes to take out key bridges and police headquarters.

The President of the United States immediately launched air and drone strikes on Cuban land forces in Cuba, but when facing the possibility of attacking the forces in Miami which might result in an American citizen dying, the President pulled out the PAUL ACT(named after a one term Senator, who later became famous for a reality TV program called......Out stupid this......) and decided that he must send troops into street by street combat rather than precision drone attacks because he would be breaking the law. After three weeks the rebellion was successfully destroyed, but only after one thousand deaths of American Troops, and the senior Senator from Florida Mr. Boards stood up in the Senate Chambers and announced......We need to go back to constitutional sanity which allows our executive branch to be........well executive..........The measure passed which simply said.....lets go back to the basics......the constitution has no such restriction against military force being used in the boundaries of the United States for a proper military purpose. This deviation from common sense by some of the forum participants is simply more Paul absolutes.....well thankfully we know how the story ends.

lol... You oppose giving the potus temporary powers to manage a sequester... but gladly give him the right to ignore due process and assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner. Nice story above... but the bigger fiction are your ethics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

I simply understand the constitution, where Mr. Paul does not when he proposes an all or nothing paradigm.

PkrBum wrote:lol... You oppose giving the potus temporary powers to manage a sequester... but gladly give him the right to ignore due process and assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner. Nice story above... but the bigger fiction are your ethics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

This is acceptable for some...for this cowh...again bet they'd be signing a different tune if it was someone else...For a leader that condemns enhanced interrogation being used but feels it's alright to 'eliminate' citizens on US soil should be a concern for all...Geez and these folks not long ago had their panties in a bundle for wiretapping conversations between citizens and suspected criminals...they called that a violation of rights but now it's ok to takem out?....

2seaoat wrote:I simply understand the constitution, where Mr. Paul does not when he proposes an all or nothing paradigm.

So now there's an understanding of the Constitution in this matter but it's acceptable to ignore the Second Amendment?...Can't have it both ways either support or not...some are pick and choosing in order to promote a radical political agenda and allowing what the Founding Fathers feared...an out of control federal government...

An exception to Posse Comitatus Act derived from the Force Acts allowed President Eisenhower to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, during the 1958 school desegregation crisis. The Force Acts, among other powers, allow the President to call up military forces when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people.

Certainly, rational and intelligent people can understand that the President of the United States most certainly has the power to order military action within the United States. Within the scope of that action, the use of drones is an absolute right, just as the use of a rifle, pistol, or grenade. The absurdity of this conversation is that in Ivory towers we talk about political philosophy, but when the garbage man does not show up......well that is reality, and a proper government response lies in reality, not some fuzzy headed intellectual exercise about progressives or conservatives.......or tyranny......nope, just pick the garbage up and do the proper job of government. Drone strikes in the United States are constitutional in the right context.

So now there's an understanding of the Constitution in this matter but it's acceptable to ignore the Second Amendment?...Can't have it both ways either support or not...some are pick and choosing in order to promote a radical political agenda and allowing what the Founding Fathers feared...an out of control federal government...

Who has ignored the second amendment? Those who understand the constitution and have read the very clear language of our Supreme Court over the last 200 years know that the bill of rights are not absolutes, and in each amendment those rights are qualified as interpreted by the courts. The courts have made it clear as to the breadth of the second amendment.....do you challenge the Supreme Court's right to do the same.

2seaoat wrote:I simply understand the constitution, where Mr. Paul does not when he proposes an all or nothing paradigm.

Then you should know that given your scenario it would already be constitutional to repel such an attack.

Then you should know that given your scenario it would already be constitutional to repel such an attack.


Exactly, and now all we have to do is convince Senator Paul and the other clowns piling out of the VW bug that the same is true, and that maybe instead of filibustering the business of this nation, he should actually read the constitution like his father has......sadly he simply rides on the reputation of his father......one empty clown suit.

Warrantless wiretaps, undeterred surveillance and limitless information gathering, indefinite detention, discretion to kill at will... these powers are all relatively new having been authorized over the last dozen years by the patriot act and ndaa. They circumvent and violate the bill of rights and other constitutional acts. There seems to be no point at which you would draw a line... but there were those that did when Bush was potus and now have your indifference as Obama has not only upheld the patriot act but has expanded the erosion of our liberties.

“The president was blunt, so I will be blunt: this program is breaking the law, and this president is breaking the law,” said Feingold, speaking on the Senate floor in February of 2007. “Not only that, he is misleading the American people in his efforts to justify this program.”

Where is this outrage today?

"Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, justified targeting civilians by telling the judge, “When the drones hit, they don’t see children.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

2seaoat wrote:So now there's an understanding of the Constitution in this matter but it's acceptable to ignore the Second Amendment?...Can't have it both ways either support or not...some are pick and choosing in order to promote a radical political agenda and allowing what the Founding Fathers feared...an out of control federal government...

Who has ignored the second amendment? Those who understand the constitution and have read the very clear language of our Supreme Court over the last 200 years know that the bill of rights are not absolutes, and in each amendment those rights are qualified as interpreted by the courts. The courts have made it clear as to the breadth of the second amendment.....do you challenge the Supreme Court's right to do the same.

You are aware that there are some that wish to go against the Second Amendment....it's been in the news....

nochain wrote:"Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, justified targeting civilians by telling the judge, “When the drones hit, they don’t see children.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Correct...remember when drone strikes...rhetoric..and even mentioning 'terrorists or terrorism' had to be part of the problem that would upset the 'terrorists'?....Now instead of incarceration and obtaining information/intelligence it's suddenly alright to kill...Poll: To be waterboarded or taken out by a drone?...Sen Paul better be looking skyward as he continues to point out the hypocrisy and unconstitutional polices of this administration...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There seems to be no point at which you would draw a line..

Lines are drawn in factual context when a case is brought before the Supreme Court......before then it is unbridled ignorance which rails against certain congressional actions as being unconstitutional.......they may be right, but the simple fact you declare something unconstitutional is amusing, and consistently incorrect. I will argue to the day I die that a 4th amendment violation as to an unreasonable search and seizure happens when a person who is stopped for a DUI refuses to take the breathalyzer, and the cops call the SA, who gets a warrant for a blood draw......I argue with my daughter constantly that the 4th amendment is clear.....she simply replies.....the Supreme Court does not agree with you dad......get out of your ivory tower and enter the real world.......

Yes... It's too complicated for the huddled masses to interpret. The scotus always gets it right.... right?

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life,liberty,or property,without due process of law."

Hey... It says state not federal... carte blanche right?

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life,liberty,or property,without due process of law."


What happens when the state wants to buy your property? They have for 30 years had it on their wish list. What if the state does everything possible to put up roadblocks to your enhancing the value of your property? I am currently suing a state who is constructively "taking" my property and denying my rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments.......I will win. I will get to keep my bathroom trailer. My value of my property will be enhanced. When and if they purchase my property they will pay fair market price.....not a price they lowered by unconstitutional acts.......but then again......the judge may disagree with me......but I live in the real world not some ivory tower of false dogma and noble purpose......and understand that in fact courts do get it wrong sometimes, that people die in wars, and that floods and natural disasters happen in the real world.....but being a fuzzy headed dogmameister living in an Ivory tower has its benefits.....in perfection.....nothing ever goes wrong.

How would you feel if the govt is able to gather information, surveil, wiretap without warrant in their opinion of common good? Then use that information to deem you an enemy (combatant) of the state (removing the rights of US citizen) that allows them to remove you from that property, indefinitely detain you, and kill you... all with no judicial review or recourse.

These things have been ruled constitutional over the last two presidents. Do you think you have gained something? Do you see a general direction that these actions are heading? Can you foresee an action that you might think the govt has gone too far?

It's odd that you can see the increase in police and prisons but are unable to figure out how that happens.