Rand Paul's filibuster is a statement for folks to wake up

[The Man]

That's why they were asked the question....the response was clear with the boasting of authority to do such

 

[The Man]

If I am not mistaken he has already killed one....he waited until the citizen went to visit Pakistan.
People may want to think about vacation plans very seriously.....after all once you are a suspect you are open game while traveling..and the authority is already in place to kill on our own soil...sad but true.

 

[Joe the meek]

are you serious?

talk about ignoring the Bill of Rights and the Constitution

I was refering to their use over in the sandbox.

That said, the government has already used these drones to keep tabs on certain areas of our country.

 

[Joe the meek]

If I am not mistaken he has already killed one....he waited until the citizen went to visit Pakistan.
People may want to think about vacation plans very seriously.....

Once you go proclaiming jihad agasint the the United States and work towards the downfall of the government in the name of Allah (or any God for that matter), as far as I'm concearned, if your ass is grass, I don't really care if your a US citizen or not. If I remember correctly, didn't they just give Walker jail time?

 

[Accountable]

I wonder if Romney had won the election and we had status quo regarding our civil liberties, if this would be your or Rand Paul's tune? BTW, I am against things like the a bill with a name as disgusting (considering what it does) as the Patriot Act. I like Ron. Rand is a horses ass...

Romney would likely have kept Gitmo going just as Bush did it. Unfortunately, Rand was in favor of it:

For Immediate ReleaseNovember 19, 2009


BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY – Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts.


"Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution," said Dr. Paul. "These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies."

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/11/rand-paul-on-guantanamo-bay.html

So no, I don't think Rand would be holding a filibuster, but I don't think Romney would be using armed drones to execute individuals, either. He'd still be keeping prisoners without charge or sentence.

 

[The Man]

Once you go proclaiming jihad agasint the the United States and work towards the downfall of the government in the name of Allah (or any God for that matter), as far as I'm concearned, if your ass is grass, I don't really care if your a US citizen or not. If I remember correctly, didn't they just give Walker jail time?

Anwar al-Awlaki had actually been in custody here twice and released....so why didn't they keep him locked up if they had a case? ...but rather instead drone execute him on foreign soil?
the case must have been weak.....don't get me wrong I am no terrorist lover buy it appears that less evidence is needed for a drone execution than a criminal trial.

 

[Joe the meek]

Anwar al-Awlaki had actually been in custody here twice and released....so why didn't they keep him locked up if they had a case? ...but rather instead drone execute him on foreign soil?
the case must have been weak.....don't get me wrong I am no terrorist lover buy it appears that less evidence is needed for a drone execution than a criminal trial.

Unless you've been putting on one hell of a show, there is no way you would feel the same way if it would of been a republican president giving the same orders.

I'm no Obama fan, but I'm not going to crucify the man just because I don't like him.

 

[The Man]

Unless you've been putting on one hell of a show, there is no way you would feel the same way if it would of been a republican president giving the same orders.

I'm no Obama fan, but I'm not going to crucify the man just because I don't like him.

Sure I would.. but since you turned it into a republican verses democrat situation. I will take this oppurtunity to point out it was a republican president that arrested him then let him go...his execution was done by the democrats later.....you know the ones that are remaining silent.

 

[The Man]

I'm no Obama fan, but I'm not going to crucify the man just because I don't like him.

So do you approve of executions after we release a citizen from custody without a conviction?
Thats what I am seeing...correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Joe the meek]

So do you approve of executions after we release a citizen from custody without a conviction?
Thats what I am seeing...correct me if I am wrong.

If an American citizen is in the sandbox working towards "Jihad" agasint the United States, I lose no sleep over a drone taking them out.

I'm guessing the guy who got hit didn't have nude photos of Obama or Obama was pissed that he was picketing the white house.

For one to get hit by a drone in the sandbox would raise questions as to why you where there to begin with, particularly if you were an American citizen.

 

[The Man]

Fair enough.

But I must ask in regard to this part of your post.

For one to get hit by a drone in the sandbox would raise questions as to why you where there to begin with, particularly if you were an American citizen.

Are you saying that being an American citizen being in the sandbox equates to guilt of jihad against the US.
Or being a US citizen raises enough question to warrant an execution?

Before you respond ...Obama also visited that country before he involved himself into politics...Should he have been droned?....I mean if we are willing to execute for such ...that same conduct by an individual should disqualify one from office at minimum.

Dont get me wrong I am not seeing widespread abuse of the power via drone...but what I do see is an open gate for such to happen.

There is much difference is between running in the gray of a law...and the law itself being very gray...the latter has no place in our system.

 

[Joe the meek]

Fair enough.

But I must ask in regard to this part of your post.


Are you saying that being an American citizen being in the sandbox equates to guilt of jihad against the US.
Or being a US citizen raises enough question to warrant an execution?

Before you respond ...Obama also visited that country before he involved himself into politics...Should he have been droned?....I mean if we are willing to execute for such ...that same conduct by an individual should disqualify one from office at minimum.

Dont get me wrong I am not seeing widespread abuse of the power via drone...but what I do see is an open gate for such to happen.

There is much difference is between running in the gray of a law...and the law itself being very gray...the latter has no place in our system.

The law may be gray, but there is also common sense.

No, just visiting the sandbox does not warrent getting hit by a drone.

The question is, what where you doing in the sandbox to begin with and what are your reasons for being there?

If I remember correctly, the one Amercian "Jihadist" who got hit pretty much only had his citizenship in name only AND I believe they had him doing a lot via electronic devices (working for their "American" arm so to speak).

 

[Stone]

...................

There is much difference is between running in the gray of a law...and the law itself being very gray...the latter has no place in our system.

.



Indeed.......like the legalized torture you supported under Bush.



Anyone bother to read the Constitution, in particular, Article 1, Section 9?
Specifically:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Under certain circumstances, habeas corpus can be suspended and martial law imposed.
And it's been done in the recent past.
Shoot to kill orders were given to police by the Louisiana Governor after Katrina hit.

Americans were shot and killed without judicial review.

Extending that to cover an American actively involved in domestic terrorism isn't even a stretch of the law.

But suspending habeas corpus and instituting martial law is no small matter and involves trust that current and previous Federal administrations obviously lack. Often with good reason.

Paul was grandstanding.

 

[Joe the meek]

Indeed.......like the legalized torture you supported under Bush.

You refference is one of many posts by "The Man" which makes me scratch my head on his position per this topic.

 

[The Man]

.



Indeed.......like the legalized torture you supported under Bush.



Anyone bother to read the Constitution, in particular, Article 1, Section 9?
Specifically:

Under certain circumstances, habeas corpus can be suspended and martial law imposed.
And it's been done in the recent past.
Shoot to kill orders were given to police by the Louisiana Governor after Katrina hit.

Americans were shot and killed without judicial review.

Extending that to cover an American actively involved in domestic terrorism isn't even a stretch of the law.

But suspending habeas corpus and instituting martial law is no small matter and involves trust that current and previous Federal administrations obviously lack. Often with good reason.

Paul was grandstanding.

Indeed.......like the legalized torture you supported under Bush.

Just cant let it go can you.
It wasnt legalized torture...there is no such thing ...it was deemed to be torture later.
Thus I am not for prosecuting those that done what was legal at the time.
Just as I am against prosecuting Obama here for "murder"

And like joe..I dont give a fuck about those terrorists...my interest is in the law.

Under certain circumstances, habeas corpus can be suspended and martial law imposed.
And it's been done in the recent past.
Shoot to kill orders were given to police by the Louisiana Governor after Katrina hit.

Hardly a comparison....one is taking care of an area in disaster with serious problems.
The other is using intelligence to hunt and execute defined individuals.

Americans were shot and killed without judicial review.

Again hardly a comparison...I would like to also mention that that laws have been written since to prevent future disarming of citizens..and they were also ordered to give back arms to those that could prove ownership.

Extending that to cover an American actively involved in domestic terrorism isn't even a stretch of the law.

Which means you approve of the disarming and killing of citizens during Katrina...not a good position to take.

But suspending habeas corpus and instituting martial law is no small matter and involves trust that current and previous Federal administrations obviously lack. Often with good reason.

If used as intended its great...however what defines an emergency...IMO Katrina was much closer to an emergency response.

Lets say some jihad is vested up and ready to take out a small population..then by all means kill him.
However to investigate persons then kill them by rank in affiliations...is hardly an emergency affair.

The law is far to gray

 

[The Man]

The law may be gray, but there is also common sense.

No, just visiting the sandbox does not warrent getting hit by a drone.

The question is, what where you doing in the sandbox to begin with and what are your reasons for being there?

If I remember correctly, the one Amercian "Jihadist" who got hit pretty much only had his citizenship in name only AND I believe they had him doing a lot via electronic devices (working for their "American" arm so to speak).

The question is, what where you doing in the sandbox to begin with and what are your reasons for being there?

I do have to agree..it is very suspicious right off the bat.
The common American going to such place will be in a world of hurt rather fast.

If I remember correctly, the one Amercian "Jihadist" who got hit pretty much only had his citizenship in name only AND I believe they had him doing a lot via electronic devices (working for their "American" arm so to speak)

Sounds good...but if "they" can keep track of what the guy is doing via surveillance etc...seems capture would be very possible.
I shed no tears for him perishing...but I have concerns of how America is using thier power.
As a side note...it would seem will all this surveillance that led them to the guy..they should easily be able to also execute all the little guys as well.
Not that I am supporting such...am just curious.

 

[Stone]

Just cant let it go can you.
It wasnt legalized torture...there is no such thing ...it was deemed to be torture later.
Thus I am not for prosecuting those that done what was legal at the time.
Just as I am against prosecuting Obama here for "murder"

And like joe..I dont give a fuck about those terrorists...my interest is in the law.



Hardly a comparison....one is taking care of an area in disaster with serious problems.
The other is using intelligence to hunt and execute defined individuals.



Again hardly a comparison...I would like to also mention that that laws have been written since to prevent future disarming of citizens..and they were also ordered to give back arms to those that could prove ownership.


Which means you approve of the disarming and killing of citizens during Katrina...not a good position to take.

If used as intended its great...however what defines an emergency...IMO Katrina was much closer to an emergency response.

Lets say some jihad is vested up and ready to take out a small population..then by all means kill him.
However to investigate persons then kill them by rank in affiliations...is hardly an emergency affair.

The law is far to gray

Just cant let it go can you.
It wasnt legalized torture...there is no such thing ...it was deemed to be torture later.

See what I mean.....you supported legalized torture during the Bush administration...... and contrary to your claim....waterboarding had always been torture.

And it conflicts with your statement:

.....................

There is much difference is between running in the gray of a law...and the law itself being very gray...the latter has no place in our system.

And the issue isn't about letting anything go....it's about debate.
You consistently debate out of convenience of the moment.

And like joe..I dont give a fuck about those terrorists...my interest is in the law.

Joe I believe is sincere.......but you did support legalizing torture and let's face it, there isn't much sincerity in your comments when you now deny that support.
It's obvious you think reclassifying torture as aggressive influence was legal.
It's rather obvious your interests are more aligned in perverting law for convenience.

Hardly a comparison....one is taking care of an area in disaster with serious problems.
The other is using intelligence to hunt and execute defined individuals.

No.....that second remark is neither the scenario presented in the Constitution nor the context of my terms......."actively involved"......or do you need a dictionary?
And my comments do not address 'executions'.

Again hardly a comparison...I would like to also mention that that laws have been written since to prevent future disarming of citizens..and they were also ordered to give back arms to those that could prove ownership.

Off topic and contextually------>nonsense

Which means you approve of the disarming and killing of citizens during Katrina...not a good position to take.

The above means you are desperate and eager to go off topic.
It also means you neither consider re-establishing law and order after a civil break down important, nor realize you just took a left turn from your usual ultra rightwing neocon political position to a left wing liberal position as was frequently expressed after Katrina (edit) as expressed in much of the press.
But that's not surprising after seeing you argue socialism is evil and then argue in support of a socialist economic model for economic recovery......( wow! )

Don't you ever feel dirty from all those contradictions?

Lets say some jihad is vested up and ready to take out a small population..then by all means kill him.
However to investigate persons then kill them by rank in affiliations...is hardly an emergency affair.

The law is far to gray

I suggest you read up on suspending habeas corpus and implementing martial law.
And I suggest you read my posts closer and be more careful in responding.
You look silly.


Under certain circumstances, habeas corpus can be suspended and martial law imposed.
And it's been done in the recent past.

That's the way it is and the rationale is to re-establish civilian order when it's over run.

Don't like law AND ORDER?
Would you like your TS card punched?

Paul was grandstanding.
Obama got burned on trying to conceal what the government already has a right and duty to perform when necessary. Probably for political imagery......he is a liberal, after all.

 

[Alien Allen]

here we go again

nice way to derail a thread with your guys petty pissing contests

geeze grow up you two

 

[Stone]

You refference is one of many posts by "The Man" which makes me scratch my head on his position per this topic.

It's really simple......when a Republican legalizes a form of torture......all is good.
When a Democrat follows a same or similar path of ethical/moral misconduct.....all is bad.
Except on Tuesdays and Thursdays or if it's convenient to try to slip a few contradictions/non sequiturs through.

 

[Joe the meek]

Sounds good...but if "they" can keep track of what the guy is doing via surveillance etc...seems capture would be very possible.

I believe they killed two birds with one stone. The man we are refering to was only one of those birds.