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

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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"

Eric Holder and Dick Cheney should have been sentenced to federal prison for 20 years each, if not outright executed by lethal injection. But they never got prosecuted and thus still tell their stupid tales. Why on earth would someone support either speaks volumes.

But only sex crimes(clinton) and eavesdropping(nixon) get prosecuted in america. We get some cheesy impeachments and then no indictments.

The whole republic vs democracy thing is a joke!

reply to post by burning_need


How would a drone strike be appropriate in a hostage scenario?

Wouldn't that put the hostages at risk?

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.

Thats like saying 3 jacks are a lousy hand in poker compared to a royal flush. And sure I would agree. The alternative however is a pair of 5's which is much lousier. I would rather take the 3 jacks and call everyone else's hand out.

Originally posted by 311DTOM
reply to post by burning_need

 

How would a drone strike be appropriate in a hostage scenario?

Wouldn't that put the hostages at risk?

It wouldn't be appropriate at all, they wouldn't drone strike a bank suicide bomber with hostages inside, they would negotiate with him or just try to take him out with other means.

The Obama Administration (just a front for the military industrial complex, Romney would've done the same thing) is advocating drones to usher in a new era of foreign and domestic warfare. They have to send those 30,000 drones somewhere... =/

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.

Hit the nail on the head. There were a number of factors involved in 'waking me up', and he was surely one of the more influential.

I rarely go to his sites anymore and got tired of his rants, however he found a nice niche and probably has done more for 'waking the masses' than anyone else out there.

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.

Ummm........define "engaged in combat" in the context of this letter.........What exactly does that mean?......According to their list of terrorist who's who....YOUR...on that list and possibly/probably considered an enemy combatant......how is this considered a win,win...in your opinion?

Read the text of Rand Pauls new drone ammendment.....it's just ludicrous for you to keep claiming that this blizzardbuster was a win.............smoke...and...mirrors................nothing more.

YouSir

Originally posted by eLPresidente
They have to send those 30,000 drones somewhere... =/

Well I've now had 3 fly over my house just in the last month and a half (including last night while I was watching Rand's filibuster, the irony wasn't lost on me).

Wonder where the other 29,997 are

Originally posted by Destinyone
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

Please feel free to do the same and since there would be no Rand Paul were it not for the support he and his father drew from and through Alex Jones and since none is providing more clear and current updates on the Rand Paul Filibuster than Alex Jones and his affiliates, and since you make such a point, I will feel all the more compelled to share updates on the Rand Paul filibuster via Alex Jones.


I will of course submit to the forum moderators and OP Burntheships but this is not your thread Destinyone.

You prompt me to go a step further and share this Webcast from Lyndon La Rouche on March 1st, 2013 who I agree with 100%. I expect those who want the hard and harsh facts will listen to what Lyndon has to say before having an opinion before knowing the facts.

reply to post by eLPresidente


With this breaking news...I bet the WH will be pushing even harder for their Drone program on U.S. soil. They'll probably say it's needed to protect U.S. Citizens from retaliation.....

Timing is suspicious at best.....

Bin Laden's son-in-law, once al Qaeda's 'mouthpiece,' held by U.S.
From Barbara Starr, Susan Candiotti and Josh Levs, CNN
updated 5:00 PM EST, Thu March 7, 2013

(CNN) -- Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, who has served as an al Qaeda spokesman, was captured and has been brought to the United States, two administration officials and a federal law enforcement official said Thursday.

Sulaiman Abu Ghaith is scheduled to be arraigned at 10 a.m. ET Friday in a federal courtroom in New York.

Ghaith has been charged in a federal indictment with conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, the U.S. Department of Justice announced.

www.cnn.com...

New thread by ATS member, Havox here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Des

Originally posted by 311DTOM

Originally posted by eLPresidente
They have to send those 30,000 drones somewhere... =/

Well I've now had 3 fly over my house just in the last month and a half (including last night while I was watching Rand's filibuster, the irony wasn't lost on me).

Wonder where the other 29,997 are

edit on 7-3-2013 by 311DTOM because: fix smiley

It would be nice to know wouldn't it?

A lot of people lump the idea of "drone" into one category. You say "drone" deployment and most folks automatically get a mental image of a "Predator" attack drone...they have all kinds of R/C surveillance equipment that is classified as drones...and none of them belong in the skies of the USA...

Just my opinion...

Senate Confirms John Brennan as CIA Director


news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by MajorKarma


This is fine, I am sure there are no objections to your post.
It is true, Alex Jones has done a lot over the years to support Ron Paul,
and that should not be forgotten. Thank you.

Originally posted by YouSir

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.

Ummm........define "engaged in combat" in the context of this letter.........What exactly does that mean?......According to their list of terrorist who's who....YOUR...on that list and possibly/probably considered an enemy combatant......how is this considered a win,win...in your opinion?

Read the text of Rand Pauls new drone ammendment.....it's just ludicrous for you to keep claiming that this blizzardbuster was a win.............smoke...and...mirrors................nothing more.

YouSir

If you read my posts before and below that I've been saying the Obama administration will NEVER give us what we want because there are certain powers that THEY want. Where the hell did I call this a win-win?

Right, everything is smoke and mirrors. Open your fridge? smoke and mirrors!

reply to post by Destinyone


Thanks Des, you know this is very interesting.
They will try him in New York?

They were going to do that with Anwar, but then they decided they could not.

This is one of the problems with these perpetual shadow wars that the CIA continue
to wage. I personally think the carpet needs to be yanked out from under this activity,
and it should be brought before Congress.

Obama narrowly escaped this once, yet he just sent 100 new troops to Niger,
well is this a war, an occupation or a covert Op by the CIA.

I think America is tired of footing the bill for the CIA clandestine NWO world
destabilizations. The we Americans are left to deal with the messes.

This is one very large reason I am against Brennan, and many did not want
him confirmed for such a reason.

reply to post by Jeremiah65


The three (or one, three times) I saw were definitely Predators. Flying low and very easy to identify.

As to the R/C drones, had a discussion with an acquaintance a week or so back. He was working on a job where he had to mark lots of some type; note their locations and sizes and whatnot. Started talking about how much he would like to purchase a drone to make his job go so much faster, and when he was done he would be able to fly them over peoples houses and spy on them. Talked about how cool it would be to be able to keep an eye on certain people (his ex came up) and showed me a video some dude uploaded to YouTube of a drone flying over a nice neighborhood, of course taking video of everything. The camera couldn't pan, but it could zoom in, and the drone was literally flying over people's backyards. I was shocked at both the video and how 'awesome' he thought it would be to have that ability himself.

Is this going to be the future? Everyone owning one of these 'toys' and recording anything they want? Also, I don't understand how this isn't a privacy issue, I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone, government or private citizen, to have the ability to spy on me in my own backyard simply because they're playing around or I upset the wrong person.

Originally posted by thesmokingman
Great for Rand, but this is nothing more than a "dog and pony "show.

Rand Paul IS the "Dog and Pony" show. His father Ron? I don't agree with a lot of his positions, but he is an honest man. Rand? A panderer and BSer riding his fathers coat-tails...his fathers Principles are nothing but a convenient bumper sticker in his campaign for more power.

Originally posted by Kituwa
Senate Confirms John Brennan as CIA Director


news.yahoo.com...

I saw that.
I wonder how many of us are now "domestic terrorists" and " enemy combatants" for arguing against his confirmation and use of armed drones??? Ive read in one other place supporters saying that you are probably a terrorist if you dont want the mainland protected from terrorists by any means including drones ( or posts to that effect). Good grief... its as if everyone has gone mad.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65

A lot of people lump the idea of "drone" into one category. You say "drone" deployment and most folks automatically get a mental image of a "Predator" attack drone...they have all kinds of R/C surveillance equipment that is classified as drones...and none of them belong in the skies of the USA...

Just my opinion...

Yes, and this is one of the loose ends that needs to be tied up.

Firstly here in The U.S. we have a police force that can and will
take out someone strapped with a bazooka shooting at a Federal Building.

What we do not need on top of this, and which is illegal is a para-military operation
in which the CIA is using drones here on American soil to kill Americans who may be
sympathetic to terrorists, or other shady circumstances.

But what of other suspect behaviors, or political disagreement with far left, prorgressive leaning
policy, socialist agendas?

Since there is a secret kill list, and we are not privy to any information
how do we know, how can we trust that they are not targeting Americans in secret?

As Rand Paul said yesterday, the SPLC, and Fusion Centers regularly publish
far left, and outlandiish guidlines on who may be, and how to define domestic terrorists,
and people who may be dangerous.

Those reports by the fusions centers name people who are buying 7 days of food
at the store, and suggest that if you see something say something.

This is the kind of insanity that fuels the fire in which ordinary law abiding citizens
who have never known, and will never know anyone associated with al Qaeda
become a person of suspect behavior. It is quite apparent that this is out of hand
and one is left wondering why?

Is it so that America can become a battlefield? Sometimes it looks that way,
it appears as if they forsee a time when The United States will be a war zone,
and they will be justified in using para military, military and CIA drones for
controlling and targeting American citizens.

Maybe this is wrong, and way off base, but this is exactly what Rand Paul
said on the senate floor yesterday.

reply to post by Indigo5


Well, that is a load of B.S. The only dog and pony show is the one
Jay Carney puts on, and the old gaurds that are ready to retire soon.

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 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.

So this is the best that the Democrat team can come up with?

You already stated that you don't want to discuss anything with anyone who likes Rand Paul but you choose to come in a thread about Rand Paul. You don't really want to talk about the use of drones, you just attack the man trying to prevent the president (any president) from having the ability to kill Americans.

So to cap it off, what does the left have to say - class warfare and ad hominem. Pathetic.