| Soleron said: Why does someone have to be there? I thought you could filibuster in absentia in the US system. |
A virtual filibuster can be, but that requires 41 senators to threaten to filibuster. Unlike with the usual filibuster, it's not really Paul's intent to actually prevent Brennan's confirmation - the votes are probably already there - but to make a point about drones and due process.
CChaos said:
This has to be one of the most ludicrous statements that ever spilled forth by some tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. The fact that it happens to be a member of your government doesn't negate that title.
I can't help but notice that there hasn't been any drone struck US citizens on American soil. Just ones that are out amongst the people who are trying to kill other American citizens. I'm sorry, but this overblown paranoia about your country turning into some kind of police state where people are getting murdered by your government on a daily basis pretty much says just how nuts the arguments actually are. Not to pry, but how, exactly, is this going to start happening? Is the US going to suddenly revert to being China because, oh no, someone you didn't like got the presidency? Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro are plotting with Obama to unite the communist regimes and muslims to perform a Stallone style take down of the American way of life? The Democrats are going to allow UN control over the United States and turn it into the basis of the New World Order (yeah, this is an argument I get to see sometimes)? Or is maybe Obama one of the evil lizard people along with Dubya? Come on. There are so many people in the US that get pissed off when they do something as simple as try and get rid of the penny or get money to fix a bridge that people actually need. If they started drone striking people in the States, it would be a secret for all of ten minutes (you just need one witness saying they see a smoke trail before an explosion before everything hit the fan) and it would be followed by cataclysmic repercussions. Anyways, just my two cents. I'm going to back away from the thread now before it ignites into whatever it's going to.
|
It's not whether or not it has happened, but the fact it could happen and be considered legal by the government.
Americans like living to much, I'd be glad if jesus Obama decided to free me from this horrible life
Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.
| Mr Khan said: The whole affair is something that sounds good on paper, but in reality is almost as terroristic as the people we're applying them against (since we've declared that any adult males working in the vicinity of suspected terrorists are automatically suspected terrorists) We need to raise the burden of proof that the plotters are active, for one. Two, they can't be U.S. citizens, and three, the acceptable standards of collateral damage have to be made stricter. |
Because your working now I'm guessing you missed out on the most important part of this phillibuster...
what lead to this essentially was.
Rand Paul - "Can the US government use drones to kill people on US Soil rather then arrest them"
Obama Administration "..."
Rand Paul - "Can the US government order the deaths of US citizens on Us soil."
Obama Administration - "..."
Rand Paul - "How about non-citizen terrorists on US soil can you kill them?"
Obama Administration "..."
*Repeat 50 times*
Eric Holder - "Legally I could see the case for it, like... 9'11, and pearl harbor! Obama totally wouldn't though. To do so would take heavy contemplation and planning thogh. (So we are't talking about a plane headed towards a tower like I just suggested, but maybe the planning of 9'11. And as for Pearl Habor, i have no clue what was up with that suggestion.)"
Besides, we reject killing US citizens on US soil where lawenforcement can do the job as well or better as a policy issue. (note, not legal issue. It's a policy issue. Legally apparently they could totally still do this.)
Obama administration - "...."
So essentially we are forced to assume Obama believes he can kill US citizens who he believes are terrorists, on US soil... and non-citizens on US soil as well.
So, not only does the burden of proof need to be raised... it's actually LOWER then we all believe it is!
Drones are a far better idea then putting American lives at risk. Plus it strikes fear in the enemy. Yes there is collateral damage but then again it means less grieving american families and more dead insurgents. War is messy no matter what, this can't be avoided.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
| sales2099 said: Drones are a far better idea then putting American lives at risk. Plus it strikes fear in the enemy. Yes there is collateral damage but then again it means less grieving american families and more dead insurgents. War is messy no matter what, this can't be avoided. |
So... you supportt the current position that it's totally legal for the President to use drones on US citizen, on US soil... so long as they are suspected terrorists.
And note, reasons to be suspected a terroirst include, missing fingers, and buying food in bulk.
Kasz216 said:
So... you supportt the current position that it's totally legal for the President to use drones on US citizen, on US soil... so long as they are suspected terrorists. And note, reasons to be suspected a terroirst include, missing fingers, and buying food in bulk. |
Maybe I am out of the loop, but has this happened? Like home soil drone attacks?
Seems it would be far easier for SWAT to raid their house then make a lot of noise and explosion with a drone attack.
And yes, I too notice that middle eastern shoppers load up their carts with massive amounts of milk. I thought I was the only one who noticed that :P
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
sales2099 said:
Maybe I am out of the loop, but has this happened? Like home soil drone attacks? Seems it would be far easier for SWAT to raid their house then make a lot of noise and explosion with a drone attack. And yes, I too notice that middle eastern shoppers load up their carts with massive amounts of milk. I thought I was the only one who noticed that :P |
it hasn't happened yet. However this fillibuster has happened specifically because Obama hasn't answered the question of whether he thinks he could do it.
At best all that's been released is a Justice Department Memo which more or less suggets... yes he thinks he can kill US citizens, on US soil by suspecting them to be a terrorist based one something as simple as "Lost a finger in woodshop."
Rand Paul is trying to create fear and paranoia, claiming the "big bad government" is going to EXECUTE YOU via drone strike WHILE YOU SLEEP.
This is retarded. Waste of money and time. He's wasting money every second he's standing there on the floor, spewing this right-wing, redneck propaganda. I'm so tired of pathetic republicans senators and house representatives WASTING time and filibustering everything.
Over 80% of americans support the drone program. You're wasting our time, freshman senator who's going to be out of power in about 2-4yrs.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
