Rand Paul Filibustering Over Drones: I Will Not Let Obama ‘Shred the Constitution’

FINALLY someone is standing up (And I don't care if it was Bugs Bunny) and saying THIS IS ENOUGH.

We've had enough of our rights being taken away!

We're not going to be shot at by drones, okay?

And we're tired of the EXECUTIVE orders that enslave us, and tired of the slow but steady march of the NWO.

FINALLY--someone takes a STAND---the sort of stand (a 13 hour one, okay?) we here at ATS pray for and care about and relish and wait for.....

And people on this thread are complaining about it?

REALLY?

You're going to shoot the messenger?

Heck, you guys complain about EVERY messenger. There isn't consensus
on ONE messenger on this whole site.

When you're willing to stand up and shout out at the GUBMENT and the NWO cronies then you have the right to come on here and complain.

I don't care if the person who stood up and took a stand was Bugs Bunny or Superman or the Road Runner, at least someone was TAKING A STAND.

And there are all kinds of people around the world who are beginning to do so.,

Be proud of them.

People have died for our freedoms, for our rights, Whistle blowers, scientists.....

and it makes me sick at all the people on this site who spend their lives shooting every messenger that comes along.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO FIGHT THE INJUSTICE?

AND OUR SLAVERY?

I'd really like to know.

Let me guess...

Nothing.

You complainers, you messenger shooters, do nothing but come and here and complain.

SOMEONE TOOK A STAND YESTERDAY.

THAT'S A GOOD THINGS FOLKS.

reply to post by burntheships

“The actions that we take on the counterterrorism front, again, are to take actions against individuals where we believe that the intelligence base is so strong and the nature of the threat is so grave and serious, as well as imminent, that we have no recourse except to take this action that may involve a lethal strike,” he said. www.washingtontimes.com...

The moment this happens, is the moment the UNITED STATES declares war on America! This country has every right to defend itself against an act of WAR !

Take a close look at what Obama intends to place as the Director of the CIA

Take a close look at this "Play" they all put on for the American Public over what was another one of their Counterpro Operations where they probably had Bin Laden's double (also a CIA Operative as was Osama Bin Laden) murdered or do you not see the Photo Shop.


Wake up to what these people really are...A Truly Disgusting Barrel of Rotten Apples.

every so often the tree of liberty will be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants........

is it me or is the noose tightening around freedom's neck.....?

reply to post by Bacardi



LoL you bring up Alex Jones, hahahahahaha I think you need to lay off the Bacardi guy! LoL

White House, Holder respond to Rand Paul: ‘The answer is no’

Attorney General Eric Holder wrote Sen. Rand Paul,R-Ky., to confirm that President Obama does not have the authority to kill an American on U.S. soil in a non-combat situation, Obama’s spokesman announced today.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil,” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”

Carney added that, “if the United States were under attack, there were an imminent threat,” the president has the authority to protect the country from that assault.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., criticized Paul for posing the question. “I find the question offensive,” he said on the Senate floor this morning.

Source

Freaking took long enough to get the answer, haven't seen this posted yet.

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

Here is my point. Look at this beautiful FIVE year old child, that was the victim of a drone strike. Can you tell me what will happen the first time this happens on US soil? i.imgur.com...

drone strike? no, that was a gas leak, that's why she is burned and not in pieces.

*the above is what will be said once they start targeting americans who disagree.

reply to post by IsawWHATtheyDID


There WILL be drone strikes (if there haven't been already) on US Soil. But the government simply will not release the information. It will be labeled a "propane explosion" or someone who was mentally unstable "building explosives" in his basement, etc.

Sorry, have not read the entire thread. Read much of it but I don't think this is about drones. It's about killing Americans on American soil and elsewhere. What is the difference between a sniper, wet team or a drone. None in my opinion, in the end your dead either way. That's the message being sent. It's solely about the fifth amendment... I see that violated and I will join any organization against.

I would accept a drone strike against someone if the police deem it necessary. There are many scenarios where this would be appropriate. Hostage, manhunt etc, remember drones can carry non lethal weapons as well. Why put an innocent police officer in harms way when a drone can get the flash grenade/tear gas delivered safely?

ETA: I know about the American killed at the bbq, I do not agree with that and let my congressman know and several others. Do not attack my view only on that issue.

reply to post by GaucheDroite


Thank you for the update!
I am interested to hear what Rand Paul has to say in response.

reply to post by burntheships


Perhaps he should say this:

I would feel comfortable with DHS using drones over American soil after the military can show a track record of drone use in war with absolutely zero collateral damage, while at the same time killing only those who are guilty of crimes deserving of the immediate death penalty.

Because only then should Americans be comfortable with it.

Wait, you know what, never mind. Humans should erase all drone use of any kind from future military or surveillance operations before they evolve into something horrible that we cannot stop.

reply to post by Quauhtli


This bites, but evolution is inevitable. We are not the only country with the tech, heck I own a RC helicopter with a camera. Could easily adapt to heat seeking camera and equip with a stun grenade.

Where the government will take it to is the scary part.

Well, it appears that Holder and Obama were too little too late.

Cruz, Paul Introduce Bill to Prohibit Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) today introduced legislation to prohibit drone killings of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat.

“Our Constitution restrains government power,” Cruz said. “The federal government may not use drones to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if they do not represent an imminent threat. The Commander in Chief does, of course, have the power to protect Americans from imminent attack, and nothing in this legislation interferes with that power.”

Key bill text:
The Federal Government may not use a drone to kill a citizen of the United States who is located in the United States. The prohibition under this subsection shall not apply to an individual who poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another individual. Nothing in this section shall be construed to suggest that the Constitution would otherwise allow the killing of a citizen of the United States in the United States without due process of law.

www.cruz.senate.gov...

Rand Paul interview this morning.


www.youtube.com...

JUST IN: RAND PAUL WINS. The White House has just responded to Paul's question; "No, the Executive Branch does NOT have the right to use drone strikes on American Non-Combatants on US Soil."

I agree that Drones = Bad. They super-navigate our national conscience and constitution.

I just have reservations on supporting ANYTHING to do with Rand Paul. The Ayn Randian protege pet for the Koch brothers who spearheaded the attack on the US Postal Service by forcing them to fund benefits for employees not even born yet -- forcing them into near bankruptcy at the moment.

So he's disingenuous, his agenda is to service the .1% only.

I don't wish to engage in conversation with anyone who actually likes this scum bag. But if he can stop the drones, that's like Al Capone pushing to legalize drugs -- it's a noble act from a person who is still Al Capone.

Originally posted by burning_need
reply to post by Quauhtli

 

This bites, but evolution is inevitable. We are not the only country with the tech, heck I own a RC helicopter with a camera. Could easily adapt to heat seeking camera and equip with a stun grenade.

Where the government will take it to is the scary part.

While drones are inevitable and they SAVE lots of money over Jet Fighters -- we need legislation to prevent their abuse immediately.

Unfortunately, we as a country don't have any standards worthy of inspiring the world. We haven't prosecuted torturers but we have jailed the whistleblowers who told us about it.

Drones will be used in all sorts of routine ways -- part of the "physical email and package delivery of the future."

I don't trust Rand Paul as far as Richard Simmons could throw him, however, and I'd prefer someone like Dennis Kucinich push a bill like this -- but I realize that at least it's going to have the "wing nut teabag" stamp of approval if he pushes it, decent thoughtful people don't really have a voice in Congress at the moment.

Originally posted by therealdemoboy
JUST IN: RAND PAUL WINS. The White House has just responded to Paul's question; "No, the Executive Branch does NOT have the right to use drone strikes on American Non-Combatants on US Soil."

And here it is! Anybody who is against what Rand Paul did yesterday for 13 straight hours is either trolling or just straight up hates freedom.

Originally posted by therealdemoboy
JUST IN: RAND PAUL WINS. The White House has just responded to Paul's question; "No, the Executive Branch does NOT have the right to use drone strikes on American Non-Combatants on US Soil."

Rand Paul won nothing but a PR campaign here.

That "non combatants" is a weasel word these days. Every person hit by collateral damage in a foreign land is a "suspected ally to terrorists" and a tiny speck of paperwork.

There is no LIMIT on who can be called a combatant. We don't use language to mean things anymore -- we use it to obfuscate.

Unless their is IRON-CLAD legislation that any drone activity that might cause injury has to go through a court first, and prove that normal police procedures could not work and convict the target "in absentia" -- they are not to be used -- this is just more grandstanding.

Rand Paul is awesome at grandstanding and blowing his own horn. The actual legislation he pushes merely helps billionaires that back him.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I agree that Drones = Bad. They super-navigate our national conscience and constitution.

I just have reservations on supporting ANYTHING to do with Rand Paul. The Ayn Randian protege pet for the Koch brothers who spearheaded the attack on the US Postal Service by forcing them to fund benefits for employees not even born yet -- forcing them into near bankruptcy at the moment.

So he's disingenuous, his agenda is to service the .1% only.

I don't wish to engage in conversation with anyone who actually likes this scum bag. But if he can stop the drones, that's like Al Capone pushing to legalize drugs -- it's a noble act from a person who is still Al Capone.

Ahh I feel similar to you. However, I do see that this has benefitted us, as citizens. One good act does not a saint make. I personally have a problem with any career politician, including Paul.. and Ron, too. If youre not playing ball, then youre not a politician... and he has been playing ball for decades. I dont have a problem with supporting the action of a person... and keeping it separate from supporting ALL actions the person makes. This thing with Rand is a huge thing... but it shouldnt compel anyone to support everything he does, as many do with a near worship of their political party ( or radio show host) these days. Id hope that most Americans would have learned by now that most if not all politicians have ulterior motives and "play ball" when they take these extraordinary actions. WIth all of the things that I disagree with that Rand has done, I fear his future will be defined or this ONE good thing he has done. If this sort of strong action and advocacy for the citizens becomes a pattern of behavior with Rand, then I will happily eat my words.