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

I'm glad to see the surface question has been answered, but, for me...the root of this...the real question is extraordinarily deep.

"Can the USA Gov order the assassination of a USA citizen without an indictment, trial and prosecution?

The imminent threat issue is (or was) quite clear. Someone actively seeking to immediately inflict damage or death. Now "imminent" is a vague notion of infinite time into the future.

What deems one as a "potential" threat? If you are stockpiling food, guns and ammo...if you are missing a finger...do you support the Constitutionalists party or the Libertarian party? You "might" be a "potential" threat. Well, according the the criteria for watch lists...

The suitcase nuke notwithstanding the necessary scrutiny of this scenario.

A "noncombatant" is anyone not actively engaged in fighting.

The fifth amendment is quite clear and there is no "exceptions" because it is more convenient...if someone is making threats or actively pursuing the means to do atrocious things...they should be arrested, tried and punished accordingly.

The open ended descriptions of "potential threats" needs to be seriously reviewed under this discussion of how the GOV can respond to a "potential" threat.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

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.

And exactly what is a "non combatant" to the govt? Theyve played fast and loose with the term "terrorist" so far. I also wonder about the innocents around the "combatants". It shouldnt be used on American Citizens AT ALL.. PERIOD. We keep forgetting 2 words.. due process.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

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

Wait, does your brain not work? Have you not actually read his legislation and those that he backed?

Does AUDITING the FED help billionaires? NO
Does LEGALIZING industrial help help billionaires? NO
Does AUDITING the PENTAGON help billionaires? NO
Does BALANCING the Budget help billionaires? NO

Seems like the only one blowing his own horn here is you.

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by eLPresidente

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.

And exactly what is a "non combatant" to the govt? Theyve played fast and loose with the term "terrorist" so far. I also wonder about the innocents around the "combatants".

It shouldnt be used on American Citizens AT ALL.. PERIOD. We keep forgetting 2 words.. due process.

Honestly speaking, I don't think we'll ever hear the Obama admin say that. The letter sent out today admitting they couldn't just f around without raising the red flags of the people was still a victory for us, however small it is...

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by eLPresidente

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.

And exactly what is a "non combatant" to the govt? Theyve played fast and loose with the term "terrorist" so far. I also wonder about the innocents around the "combatants".

It shouldnt be used on American Citizens AT ALL.. PERIOD. We keep forgetting 2 words.. due process.

Honestly speaking, I don't think we'll ever hear the Obama admin say that. The letter sent out today admitting they couldn't just f around without raising the red flags of the people was still a victory for us, however small it is...

Oh I agree, its a good thing... but it still shows that the Obama admin has no concern as far as adhering to the constitution/amendments/law. They just shredded the 5th and get away with it. Im shocked this administration still has any supporters.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Was watching FOX news when they had Rand on...Megan Kelly got the letter from Holder's office exactly 2 minutes before Rand got on the air for an interview with her, on the fillibuster. As of this moment, Rand Paul's office has not received a copy of the letter from Holder's office. But, every news media outlet has.

What does this tell you. Damage control by the WH, is what it says to me.

Des

reply to post by Destinyone


Yes, and just in case, Paul and Cruz introduced a bill this A.M. to prohibit
the use Drones to Kill Americans.

How sad a day it is when they are forced to do that.

reply to post by MajorKarma


Those thee photos look clearly "PhotoShopped" -- do you have the source where they came from?

It's one thing that someone might have put out on the net -- it's another if this was the official photo the US presented. I haven't followed much, but as usual, the information distributed was clear as mud.

It really angers me they didn't bring him back alive and put him on trial -- but it's likely the government has more to hide than Bin Laden, so that was never going to happen.

The constitution has served us well for over 200 years through 2 world wars and a civil war I have no doubt that it is adequate to preserve the country through this "war on terror".
I don`t believe that it is necessary to violate the constitution to keep the country safe from terrorist.
If our leaders believe that the situation is so desperate that the only way to keep the country safe from terrorist is to violate the constitution than I propose that they go back to the drawing board and reevaluate the measures that they are currently taking.I believe that there are legal measures that they can take to keep the country safe without violating our rights or the constitution.
It seems a bit hysterical for them to be screaming that the sky is falling and we need to violate the constitution and people`s rights in order to keep the country safe, they are acting like a bunch of little girls.
If they can`t find legal ways to secure the country then they should step down and let others, take their place,who can do it.
They demonstrate an extreme lack of faith and trust in the constitution`s ability to secure and preserve the union when they claim that they must violate the constitution in order to save it.
They are saying that they must violate the rule of law in order to preserve the rule of law.

the trouble is that eric holder's answer has no bearing on the legality of drone strikes on americans.

it already IS illegal because of due process and numerous other constitutional rights, but that doesn't mean it won't be ignored or changed. the second amendment is infringed upon all the time and they get away with it.

don't forget eric holder is responsible for illegal weapons sales that resulted in the deaths of americans and mexicans, yet he's still head of "the department of justice"

I've noticed a lot of people in this thread seriously deny the fact that the federal government would use these drones on American citizens on American soil without due process...

A lot of people deny this saying that the President would never use this power.. Senator McCain openly denied and went as far as calling it preposterous that the President or another government authority would use this power..

My question is..

If you do not intend on using this power... then why even make this law in the first place?

No, they want the power because they intend on using it.

reply to post by eLPresidente


You've got your opinion -- I could also site quite a few scummy things he has done. His backers. And his ACTUAL working legislation -- not these "audit the Fed" things that didn't really audit and everybody pointed out that they printed $16 Trillion to hand to banks and we've got mandatory austerity to shave $800 billion as if the budget shortfall is the end of the world -- yet no response to the $16 Trillion by either the Dems or the Republicans.

So once again -- not interested in a debate on RP. His fans are about as rational as Rand Paul fans.

It is about time someone puts this out-of-control government in its proper place. I don't care who does it and what party they represent. I think Rand Paul is a huge asset for the republican party and they best keep him and promote him higher.

Both the republican and democrat parties have filled themselves with ROBOTIC SHILLS who rarely stray from the party-line. The media has been even worst as they spin, distort, omit or otherwise criticise with destructive intent anything that does not meet the demonic globalist agenda. There are EVIL FORCES at work both in and outside of america preparing the way for the digital currency and rfid implants.

Hopefully this trend can be reversed!!

Originally posted by LarryOG
reply to post by Bacardi

 

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

Alex Jones is one hell of a human being and American, how about you smart guy?

Originally posted by DaMod
I've noticed a lot of people in this thread seriously deny the fact that the federal government would use these drones on American citizens on American soil without due process...

A lot of people deny this saying that the President would never use this power.. Senator McCain openly denied and went as far as calling it preposterous that the President or another government authority would use this power..

My question is..

If you do not intend on using this power... then why even make this law in the first place?

No, they want the power because they intend on using it.

That`s exactly right,
I`m sure there are already laws that give the authority`s the legal right to kill someone who poses an immediate threat or danger. They want the legal authority to murder an american citizen based solely on suspicion that the person might pose a danger at some point in the future.
As you pointed out, if they won`t use this power than they don`t need it, plus they can only speak for themselves they can`t guarantee that future administration won`t use or abuse the authority to murder american citizens without affording them due process.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

You've got your opinion -- I could also site quite a few scummy things he has done. His backers. And his ACTUAL working legislation -- not these "audit the Fed" things that didn't really audit and everybody pointed out that they printed $16 Trillion to hand to banks and we've got mandatory austerity to shave $800 billion as if the budget shortfall is the end of the world -- yet no response to the $16 Trillion by either the Dems or the Republicans.

So once again -- not interested in a debate on RP. His fans are about as rational as Rand Paul fans.

If you've got it then CITE it. Don't just say you have it in storage and never use it.

Forget about his backers, stop backing away from your original accusation. You essentially said he supports legislation that only benefits billionaires. I'd like to see the proof of that. I've seen his votes before and legislation that he has submitted and personally backed and I don't see any of what you say to be true.

And why does everyone have to bring Ron Paul into it? Are you that insecure about your own accusation of Rand Paul that you have to bring his father into it? Everything I said above were issues that RAND supported. If you can't decipher between the two then you shouldn't even be claiming to know these things.

Is this what debate has been reduced to here on ATS? You make me disappoint.

reply to post by MajorKarma


Half the people who hate Alex Jones think he's just a complete nutbar. The other half are typically ex-listeners who have "grown up", but have forgotten just how much time and work AJ has put into his career. It's really absurd how hard that guy works. As if getting emotional over something like Y2K is grounds for dismissing the other 100,000 hours he's put into spreading awareness.

But in this thread, it was only brought up as a straw-man when Bacardi's main points couldn't be addressed head-on.


Anyways - that letter from Eric Holder? AAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

"It has come to my attention that you have asked one additional question..."

ONE!?? JUST ONE? Rand was talking for 13 hours up there - he asked hundreds of questions. The only thing Holder can respond to is with an short response to just one question (admittedly one of the important ones) with intentionally-vague wording. As previous posters have claimed, there is nothing solid about the way he phrased that sentence. If they want to "twist" it, they will do so. If they want to break it altogether, they just won't tell you about it.

It seems this 13-hour stunt paid off - media attention, great PR for his upcoming bill to prevent drone strikes on American soil.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
I'm glad to see the surface question has been answered, but, for me...the root of this...the real question is extraordinarily deep.

"Can the USA Gov order the assassination of a USA citizen without an indictment, trial and prosecution?

The imminent threat issue is (or was) quite clear. Someone actively seeking to immediately inflict damage or death. Now "imminent" is a vague notion of infinite time into the future.

What deems one as a "potential" threat? If you are stockpiling food, guns and ammo...if you are missing a finger...do you support the Constitutionalists party or the Libertarian party? You "might" be a "potential" threat. Well, according the the criteria for watch lists...

The suitcase nuke notwithstanding the necessary scrutiny of this scenario.

A "noncombatant" is anyone not actively engaged in fighting.

The fifth amendment is quite clear and there is no "exceptions" because it is more convenient...if someone is making threats or actively pursuing the means to do atrocious things...they should be arrested, tried and punished accordingly.

The open ended descriptions of "potential threats" needs to be seriously reviewed under this discussion of how the GOV can respond to a "potential" threat.

I got news for you. The government had created what if scenarios of exterminating Occupy leaders IF they became too influential and became dificult to control. There is a video of a NYPD Captain spraying dozens of folks peacefully protesting outside of Wall Street with mace. The Captain was only given 5 days suspension with pay.

Why do you think Libertrians, Greens and Constitutionalists are IGNORED by the media? Why are they not allowed to get the 5 percent that would provide them with basic financing so they don't have to spend half the time raising money and can spend it getting their message out? Because everything is controlled and filtered into duopolism. The lobbies, especially aipac, would rather spend money controlling two parties rather than 3, 4,5.

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by MajorKarma

 

Half the people who hate Alex Jones think he's just a complete nutbar. The other half are typically ex-listeners who have "grown up", but have forgotten just how much time and work AJ has put into his career. It's really absurd how hard that guy works. As if getting emotional over something like Y2K is grounds for dismissing the other 100,000 hours he's put into spreading awareness.
.

To the contrary, I refute that there are that many people who consider Alex Jones a "NutBar" but if you are an Obamanoid or ProGovernment, you have plenty of reason to wish he was, because none has done more to expose these Globalist Marxist than Alex Jones.

reply to post by MajorKarma


Please feel free to start your very own Alex Jones thread. While we continue to discuss the ramifications of Rand Paul's filibuster, in regards to our right to Due Process, and our Constitution....

Des