If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   "And so it's come to this: Rand Paul talking all by himself on the Senate floor. It is a very sad statement on the intellectual collapse...of the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 337
    More: Sad, Rand Paul, White House, filibusters  
•       •       •

10962 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 11:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-07 08:34:32 AM
Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.
 
2013-03-07 08:38:45 AM

St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.


The only people who comment on her columns are people who mock her for being a moron.

Seriously, check the comments for any of her past columns. The only page views she gets are from people who think she's such a massive idiot that they have to tell her off.
 
2013-03-07 08:44:15 AM

RexTalionis: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

The only people who comment on her columns are people who mock her for being a moron.

Seriously, check the comments for any of her past columns. The only page views she gets are from people who think she's such a massive idiot that they have to tell her off.


I'm sure there are a few neocons floating around Fark that agree with her; but yes, people are getting tired of the "attack everyone bad" mentality.

/Benghazi!
 
2013-03-07 08:51:40 AM
You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.
 
2013-03-07 08:55:37 AM

GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.


Well, at the very least it's a step up from the completely fake filibuster.
 
2013-03-07 09:02:37 AM

EatHam: GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.

Well, at the very least it's a step up from the completely fake filibuster.


Yes, I do give him plenty of credit for that.  And it was on a legitimate issue, though I don't think he's sincere about it.

But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.
 
2013-03-07 09:04:32 AM
I heard that it was only an hour into the filibuster that he brought up his first Hitler mention.
 
2013-03-07 09:05:32 AM

St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.


Without clicking the link, I knew it would be something from her.
 
2013-03-07 09:34:37 AM

GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.


Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.
 
2013-03-07 09:38:18 AM
Tag teams were used in the past, The Golden Days of Filibustering, but were so painful the rules were changed.  They should go back to the old ways.
 
2013-03-07 09:47:01 AM

EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.


I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.
 
2013-03-07 09:53:55 AM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-07 09:58:27 AM

GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.

I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.


Thurmond isn't exactly the example I'd want to be compared to anyway. He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he was done, it passed and Thurmond hadn't changed a single vote.
 
2013-03-07 09:59:10 AM
*click*
Posted by Jennifer Rubin
*click*
 
2013-03-07 10:11:17 AM
I wonder if, at this point, the WaPo just keeps her around so they can read the lulzy comments.
 
2013-03-07 10:28:34 AM
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Paul's accusation of the media circling wagons is true. Fox is by all accounts the top-rated 'news' channel out there. Does anyone tune into Brian Williams with the same sort of zeal they do Fox? No, it's just the news, usually just playing in the background. Do people specifically tune in because he's helping to circle the wagons around Obama?

Do people tune into CNN for any other reason but a missing white girl or a sinkhole that killed a guy?

And even MSNBC - does anyone actually watch it? I'm one of the biggest libtards here and I've only seen it through Maddow clips posted at Fark. When I still used cable I had it, but never bothered with it.

Who, precisely, is this media circling the wagons when you guys own the most powerful infotainment/propaganda machine out there? Can't have it both ways.
 
2013-03-07 10:32:12 AM

MrBallou: GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.

I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.

Thurmond isn't exactly the example I'd want to be compared to anyway. He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he was done, it passed and Thurmond hadn't changed a single vote.


He is the standard for how to do a filibuster though. It's never really been about winning a vote but delaying one you don't want passing.

But he has the standard simply because he has the longest in history.
 
2013-03-07 10:48:26 AM

dickfreckle: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 307x164]


I think using phone books is cheating. Make them filibuster on the topic at hand, and don't let them use notes. It would be fun to see what they make up when they don't have anything to refer to.
 
2013-03-07 11:20:26 AM
So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.
 
2013-03-07 11:22:48 AM

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.
 
2013-03-07 11:27:00 AM
I wish we had a functioning Congress.  *not amused*
 
2013-03-07 11:37:50 AM

raerae1980: I wish we had a functioning Congress president.  *not amused*

 
2013-03-07 11:41:22 AM
www.sbm21.com

b-b-b-b-but BENGHAZI!!1!
 
2013-03-07 11:42:12 AM
The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.


/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!
 
2013-03-07 11:46:31 AM

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


I don't get the distinction that makes drones a huge problem that didn't exist before.  The debate should be about using lethal force on citizens on US soil, whether it's through a remote-controlled drone, a well-trained sniper, or a heavily armed SWAT team.

Ditto on places that are up in arms about surveillance drones, but have never had any problem with police helicopters.
 
2013-03-07 11:47:56 AM

GAT_00: MrBallou: GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.

Sure - and if I were king, the filibuster would have ended at the end of that 3 or 4 hours.  You want to filibuster, knock yourself out, but your ass better be talking the whole time.  Filibusters should be painful.

I was looking, and it turns out that Strom Thurmond apparently used these same tricks, though not as extensively, to get through his 24 hour filibuster.

Thurmond isn't exactly the example I'd want to be compared to anyway. He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. After he was done, it passed and Thurmond hadn't changed a single vote.

He is the standard for how to do a filibuster though. It's never really been about winning a vote but delaying one you don't want passing.

But he has the standard simply because he has the longest in history.


Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if we had legislators who intelligently chose to accomplish things?

What's the value of delaying a vote for 24 hours? The law might be in effect 1 day less, at best. If it would somehow help sway people's opinion by calling attention to it, it would be worth something. Otherwise it's just grandstanding.
 
2013-03-07 11:50:11 AM

MrBallou: Otherwise it's just grandstanding.


That is the filibuster.  I've always seen it as the minority dissent in exceptional form not able to be seen in simply voting no on a bill.
 
2013-03-07 11:50:53 AM
I bet Rubin smells like cat piss.

That's all I've got.
 
2013-03-07 11:52:16 AM

PreMortem: *click*
Posted by Jennifer Rubin
*click*


Pretty much what I did
 
2013-03-07 11:52:20 AM
Because filibustering an appointment nominee for political posturing has an established precedent.
 
2013-03-07 11:52:27 AM
Rubin is a neo-con spineless bandwagoner.

Rand Paul actually believes what he says and stands up for it.
 
2013-03-07 11:53:02 AM

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US?


I think the average republican is waiting for Obama to rule it out so they can criticize him for "not having the guys to defend America".
 
2013-03-07 11:53:07 AM
Another victory for Romney.
 
2013-03-07 11:53:34 AM
Of course, when Obama appoints officials during recess to avoid this bullshiat, we'll hear about how the authoritarian dictator is circumventing constitutional law.
 
2013-03-07 11:53:41 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US?

I think the average republican is waiting for Obama to rule it out so they can criticize him for "not having the guys to defend America".


"not having the guts to defend America"

dammit
 
2013-03-07 11:53:47 AM
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-03-07 11:54:08 AM
I wonder if the development of the longbow had similar detractors?

Wait, no I don't, because military technology has long revolved around how to kill the other guy while making sure/hoping your guys don't die in the process.

Drones are just the latest development in that long running technological battle.
 
2013-03-07 11:55:29 AM
I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.
 
2013-03-07 11:56:02 AM
Yes, 12 hours of bullshiatting for the sake of LOOKATLOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATMEVOTE PAULIN'16 being covered by everybody with a camera and a microphone is indicative of this blatant liberal media bias.
 
2013-03-07 11:56:06 AM

St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.


I KNEW it was her column before clicking on it.
I knew it, I knew it.
 
2013-03-07 11:56:33 AM

SilentStrider: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

Without clicking the link, I knew it would be something from her.


Came here to say this.
 
2013-03-07 11:56:36 AM

HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.


Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?
 
2013-03-07 11:56:41 AM
FTFA: " I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens." "

God, i agree with Jennifer Rubin on something. I feel like i need to change my opinion just to disagree with her.
 
2013-03-07 11:57:11 AM

Lee451: So, the average Farker strawman thinks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.



FTFY
 
2013-03-07 11:57:16 AM
The Benghazi terrorist attack, during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.

As Deputy National Security Brennan was also involved in coordinating the obviously false story that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest, even though the FBI, State Department AND CIA had evidence directly contradicting it.

\m/
 
2013-03-07 11:57:35 AM

RexTalionis: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

The only people who comment on her columns are people who mock her for being a moron.

Seriously, check the comments for any of her past columns. The only page views she gets are from people who think she's such a massive idiot that they have to tell her off.


She's an Ann Coulter wannabe; her less attractive friend who emulates her and takes her castoffs and sloppy seconds.

She serves a useful function for the Post, which can claim that giving her a forum is proof that they're fair and balanced.
 
2013-03-07 11:58:19 AM
Well, it's a real filibuster.  Got to give him props for that, considering all the "filibusters" we've had in in the past decade have basically been "we promise we'll filibuster so don't even try it" and then nothing, but the media still calls it one
 
2013-03-07 11:58:47 AM
imgs.xkcd.com

/over three hours and forty posts with no mention of this
//Fark, I am disappoint
 
2013-03-07 11:59:04 AM
If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.
 
2013-03-07 12:00:15 PM

GAT_00: MrBallou: Otherwise it's just grandstanding.

That is the filibuster.  I've always seen it as the minority dissent in exceptional form not able to be seen in simply voting no on a bill.


fark 'em. Let them vote and STFU. They have the honor of being in the legislative body of perhaps the greatest form of government ever devised by humans. They should behave accordingly.
 
2013-03-07 12:00:24 PM

Carth: FTFA: " I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens." "

God, i agree with Jennifer Rubin on something. I feel like i need to change my opinion just to disagree with her.


You realize that's pretty much exactly what Holder said to Rand Paul, right?
 
2013-03-07 12:01:07 PM
Hurrrrrrrp Benghazi! Duuuuurp drones!

farking a you inbred militia hicks are boring as shiat anymore.
 
2013-03-07 12:02:15 PM

Maud Dib: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

I KNEW it was her column before clicking on it.
I knew it, I knew it.




Damn you Fark, you spit out my image.
api.ning.com
 
2013-03-07 12:02:22 PM
I can't stand Rand, but he is 100% right on this issue.
 
2013-03-07 12:03:19 PM
pbs.twimg.com

Sen. Graham on the floor.
 
2013-03-07 12:03:25 PM

qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?


Yea, I don't understand the objection...  Police have been watching people from helicopters for years -- why does taking the pilot out of the aircraft and controlling it via radio-link make it any better or worse?
 
2013-03-07 12:03:38 PM

dietbubba: PreMortem: *click*
Posted by Jennifer Rubin
*click*

Pretty much what I did


didn't even get that far.  I saw the cray-cray headline and the WaPo link and checked the thread before I clicked.  Saved me the guilt of feeding her a pageview.
 
2013-03-07 12:04:13 PM
Looks like Rand Paul has a new whore.
 
2013-03-07 12:04:22 PM

GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.

Well, at the very least it's a step up from the completely fake filibuster.

Yes, I do give him plenty of credit for that.  And it was on a legitimate issue, though I don't think he's sincere about it.

But this still wasn't Mr. Smith.  Paul only lasted I think 3 or 4 hours before he had to hand it off to questions so he could take a break.


Was it?  He was filibustering something that was completely unrelated to the military drones.  Why couldn't he filibuster during, I don't know, actual legislation regarding the war on terror?  Why couldn't he do like a certain democrat did over actual legislation, alone.

Why couldn't he do this during the NDAA, instead of just dropping the cheater's filibuster and give s hort speech and let it go?  and why couldn't the GOP rally behind him then?

Oh yeah, because Obama didn't actually support that.
 
2013-03-07 12:04:23 PM

Bastard_Lunatic: I can't stand Rand, but he is 100% right on this issue.


Not really. He's taken a core idea which isn't absurd and just piled on bullshiat, fear, what ifs, slippery slopes, and dogpiling friends. It's an opportunistic act, not the principled move of a man fighting for something right.
 
2013-03-07 12:04:26 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.


Too late.

There's an article in this month's issue of National Geographic about drones.

kxnet.images.worldnow.com

Here in Dayton, OH there is a thriving drone and sensor industry growing in the pork-laden soil surrounding the Wright-Patterson AFB.

I doubt armed drones will be deployed within the USA.  The drones will provide pervasive surveillance so that cops can shoot, pepper spray, and Taser pre-crime suspects in person, the old fashioned way.

It's for public safety, citizen.  Why are you against safety?
 
2013-03-07 12:05:14 PM
Rand Paul is an asshole, but I will at least give him props for actually performing a filibuster (or much of it, anyways).  If you're gonna be an asshole, at least own it.
 
2013-03-07 12:05:41 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.


Lucky for you then that most of them are aircraft; they don't really operate on soil.
 
2013-03-07 12:05:49 PM
But the excessive reliance on drones is troublesome from a policy standpoint, and I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens."

If you actually listen to what Holder said when he was asked whether drones could be used in the US instead of what the Washington Post and Rand Paul think they heard, you'd realize that that's the exact position Holder took - that using drones in the US is entirely hypothetical and would not happen except under some extraordinary circumstance.

As for the 'excessive use'?  What makes hellfiring by drone so much less honorable method of warfare than shooting someone with a rifle or kicking someone when they're down?  For farks sake - my drill instructors told me that the BEST time to kick someone.

Republicans might be tough on national defense, but Iraq, Afghanistan, the hunt for bin Laden, and being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.
 
2013-03-07 12:06:10 PM
It's a sad state of affairs when the left would defend a program which involves extra-judiciary execution of anybody, yet alone american citizens.

Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO and provide real trials to captured enemies, now endorses a policy of simply killing people without oversight of any kind.
 
2013-03-07 12:06:48 PM
The House has got a much better handle on this kind of asshattery. Limit debate time and force a vote at the end of the debate.

Representative, your time is up.
 
2013-03-07 12:07:00 PM

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.
 
2013-03-07 12:08:12 PM

meat0918: I wonder if the development of the longbow had similar detractors?

Wait, no I don't, because military technology has long revolved around how to kill the other guy while making sure/hoping your guys don't die in the process.

Drones are just the latest development in that long running technological battle.



And Republicans would rather we put American soldiers and police officers in harm's way, based on their reactions.
 
2013-03-07 12:08:30 PM
If I was a U.S. senator; I'd filibuster everything until they did away with the patriot act and the TSA.

/ I'd probably do the entire musical H.M.S. Pinafore
 
2013-03-07 12:08:38 PM

MugzyBrown: It's a sad state of affairs when the left would defend a program which involves extra-judiciary execution of anybody, yet alone american citizens.

Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO and provide real trials to captured enemies, now endorses a policy of simply killing people without oversight of any kind.


Who was the plan to close GITMO stalled by? Congress. Who gave the executive the authority to take these actions? Congress. Who is the sole body with the ability to revoke that authority? Congress. But yeah, why won't Obama just bypass Congress and do what he wants anyway? That's what a real leader would do.
 
2013-03-07 12:09:06 PM

MugzyBrown: Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO


And he tried to close it.  Republican obstruction stopped him.
 
2013-03-07 12:09:22 PM

jshine: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Lucky for you then that most of them are aircraft; they don't really operate on soil.


i.imgur.com

Not yet they don't.
 
2013-03-07 12:10:21 PM

Karac: I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens."

If you actually listen to what Holder said when he was asked whether drones could be used in the US instead of what the Washington Post and Rand Paul think they heard, you'd realize that that's the exact position Holder took - that using drones in the US is entirely hypothetical and would not happen except under some extraordinary circumstance.


I think you answered your own question. I don't think the administration thought it needed to specifically set an unwavering barrier on the least likely possible thing to happen.

They may not have been right, because clearly someone thought it warranted fillibustery. I guess you should never assume that everyone is on the same page.
 
2013-03-07 12:10:58 PM
A politician doing nothing but standing around talking is news? I thought that was normal.
 
2013-03-07 12:11:01 PM

Arkanaut: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.


Well, to "use" drones is a very ambiguous term...  I've got no real objection to drones being used for aerial surveillance in place of cops in helicopters (as is currently done).  Firing missiles is entirely different, and I wouldn't support that.
 
2013-03-07 12:11:19 PM

qorkfiend: Who was the plan to close GITMO stalled by? Congress. Who gave the executive the authority to take these actions? Congress. Who is the sole body with the ability to revoke that authority? Congress. But yeah, why won't Obama just bypass Congress and do what he wants anyway? That's what a real leader would do.


So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?

It's congress fault for giving him the legal ability to kill people without trial, but not his fault for doing it?
 
2013-03-07 12:12:20 PM

Lee451: The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.


/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!


So Obama should update the NDAA, the Posse Comitatus Act and/or the Insurrection Act.

Wait, did I say "Obama"? I meant, um...the legislative body that makes law for the US. What's it called again - the one where the crazy old Texan libertarian's son is now a member in good standing of one part, and can draft and introduce legislation (and if he can convince the right number of his colleagues, the president's opinion matters not a fart in a windstorm)?

Holder defined the scope of the law that body passed. If the Legislature doesn't like the interpretation (or the law that gave rise to it), there are at least two means of righting that wrong without involving the president.
 
2013-03-07 12:12:39 PM

St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.


Since when do new laws need to be created to remove unconstitutional action? I would love to hear your scenario that would provide a constitutional acceptable drone attack on an american citizen in the u.s.
 
2013-03-07 12:12:47 PM

God's Hubris: Of course, when Obama appoints officials during recess to avoid this bullshiat, we'll hear about how the authoritarian dictator is circumventing constitutional law.


Being as the Senate wasn't in recess at the time, Obama just decided they were and appointed them anyway. And according to the Circuit Court that was unconstitutional.

Congress establishes their own rules, not the POTUS. I would have thought a temporary former Senator would have known that. But he's cool, y'know? So it's okay.
 
2013-03-07 12:13:02 PM

MugzyBrown: he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?


The problem with your being upset by this is that No, that's not what he's said, or what anyone has suggested. I have no idea where you would get this idea. This has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed.
 
2013-03-07 12:13:11 PM

qorkfiend: Carth: FTFA: " I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens." "

God, i agree with Jennifer Rubin on something. I feel like i need to change my opinion just to disagree with her.

You realize that's pretty much exactly what Holder said to Rand Paul, right?


If you're talking about the same letter I read he went out of his way not to  limit it to just that. He said one situation that they could order drone strikes would be an ongoing attack like 9/11 but he did not say it was the only situation. Just that it would require "extraordinary circumstances in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable  laws of the United States" .

That is the same level Bush requires before using torture and it wasn't good enough then either.
 
2013-03-07 12:13:15 PM

iheartscotch: If I was a U.S. senator; I'd filibuster everything until they did away with the patriot act and the TSA.

/ I'd probably do the entire musical H.M.S. Pinafore


moderateinthemiddle.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-07 12:13:23 PM

MugzyBrown: It's a sad state of affairs when the left would defend a program which involves extra-judiciary execution of anybody, yet alone american citizens.

Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO and provide real trials to captured enemies, now endorses a policy of simply killing people without oversight of any kind.



What the hell are you smoking? Who's been executed outside of enemy combatants* in Al Queada?

*remember the contex of when that word was first used?
 
2013-03-07 12:13:55 PM

MyRandomName: I would love to hear your scenario that would provide a constitutional acceptable drone attack on an american citizen in the u.s.


People are killed in the commission of crime often. Without trial. Is this also unconstitutional?
 
2013-03-07 12:14:14 PM

MugzyBrown: So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?


When has that ever been on the table?  All Holder said was that drones could be used in the case of an imminent threat.  How is piloting a drone any different than authorizing lethal force for a sniper or SWAT team?
 
2013-03-07 12:14:15 PM

LasersHurt: The problem with your being upset by this is that No, that's not what he's said, or what anyone has suggested. I have no idea where you would get this idea. This has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed.


So the CIA currently does not kill people in foreign countries via drone without judicial review?
 
2013-03-07 12:15:52 PM

Lord_Baull: What the hell are you smoking? Who's been executed outside of enemy combatants* in Al Queada?

*remember the contex of when that word was first used?


Who determined they were enemy combatants? Was there evidence presented to a jury or judge convicting them of being an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed in an active war zone?
 
2013-03-07 12:15:57 PM

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


On social issues I lean liberal, and I have to agree with you...shiat would have surely hit the fan if ol' GW suggested using drones domestically.
Our politics have come down to my team verses yours, with both sides now incapable of stepping back and examining their parties policies with any objectivism.
/the (d) and (r) are like two drunks in a bar accusing each other of having a drinking problem.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:00 PM

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: Who was the plan to close GITMO stalled by? Congress. Who gave the executive the authority to take these actions? Congress. Who is the sole body with the ability to revoke that authority? Congress. But yeah, why won't Obama just bypass Congress and do what he wants anyway? That's what a real leader would do.

So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?

It's congress fault for giving him the legal ability to kill people without trial, but not his fault for doing it?


Yes, it's Congress's fault for not revoking that ability and then complaining that the President is doing something they have legally empowered him to do. It's not that difficult to understand.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:06 PM

Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.


Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:09 PM
Jennifer Rubin...projecting?! THE HELL YOU SAY!
 
2013-03-07 12:16:16 PM

GAT_00: MugzyBrown: Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO

And he tried to close it.  Republican obstruction stopped him for fear the terrorists would break out of a ultra-maximum security prison en masse and destroy America's villages one by one as they stampede across America.



Added for clarity.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:46 PM

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: The problem with your being upset by this is that No, that's not what he's said, or what anyone has suggested. I have no idea where you would get this idea. This has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed.

So the CIA currently does not kill people in foreign countries via drone without judicial review?


I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.

Defend your statement, but don't try to drag me down some unrelated path. You said something dumb - justify it.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:59 PM
I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.
 
2013-03-07 12:16:59 PM

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: Who was the plan to close GITMO stalled by? Congress. Who gave the executive the authority to take these actions? Congress. Who is the sole body with the ability to revoke that authority? Congress. But yeah, why won't Obama just bypass Congress and do what he wants anyway? That's what a real leader would do.

So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?

It's congress fault for giving him the legal ability to kill people without trial, but not his fault for doing it?


Are we comparing prisoners captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan with targets deep in Taliban- / al Qaeda-held territory?
 
2013-03-07 12:17:32 PM

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: What the hell are you smoking? Who's been executed outside of enemy combatants* in Al Queada?

*remember the contex of when that word was first used?

Who determined they were enemy combatants? Was there evidence presented to a jury or judge convicting them of being an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed in an active war zone?


Maybe Congress shouldn't have granted the power to make that determination solely to the executive in the first place. Maybe they should undo that, since they have the ability to do so.
 
2013-03-07 12:18:21 PM
So a hyper-partisan media pundit is writing a column in the media complaining about how anything written by the media would surely be partisan if they were to veer off of event reporting and start writing something partisan.
 
2013-03-07 12:18:55 PM

NeoCortex42: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't get the distinction that makes drones a huge problem that didn't exist before.  The debate should be about using lethal force on citizens on US soil, whether it's through a remote-controlled drone, a well-trained sniper, or a heavily armed SWAT team.

Ditto on places that are up in arms about surveillance drones, but have never had any problem with police helicopters.


Thank you for being one of the few unretarded people talking about this.
 
2013-03-07 12:18:55 PM

Lord_Baull: meat0918: I wonder if the development of the longbow had similar detractors?

Wait, no I don't, because military technology has long revolved around how to kill the other guy while making sure/hoping your guys don't die in the process.

Drones are just the latest development in that long running technological battle.


And Republicans would rather we put American soldiers and police officers in harm's way, based on their reactions.


I can at least understand that you might be more hesitant to commit force if there are your guys lives to risk, but given the ability the US government has to twist public opinion to support an ill advised war, I'm not sure having or not having drones will stop any sort of military strike.

Besides, rones of one type or another are already being used for surveillance by both government, business, and private individuals here in the US.  This particular genie is out of the bottle.


images.intomobile.com

www.gadgets-reviews.com

Any assurance of no drone attacks against US citizens on US soil except in extreme situations is a tenuous assurance at best.
 
2013-03-07 12:19:00 PM

PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.


Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.
 
2013-03-07 12:19:15 PM

MyRandomName: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

Since when do new laws need to be created to remove unconstitutional action? I would love to hear your scenario that would provide a constitutional acceptable drone attack on an american citizen in the u.s.


Hypothetically, if a drone was purchased and armed by a police agency (not the military), and it observed a person with -- say -- a rocket launcher standing in a field at the end of a runway & preparing to shoot at a commercial airliner, then I don't see any constitutional problem with the police using the drone to kill him.  If a cop was actually on the scene, he'd be justified in shooting the person in such a scenario, and being in the middle of an open field precludes any possible collateral damage.

That being said, I'd still be against doing this because of the possibility of error -- and also that its just unnecessary.  Police could respond in person pretty quickly within the US as long as they know where to go.
 
2013-03-07 12:19:19 PM

Saiga410: Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.

Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.


al-awlaki recruited and trained militants.  Remember the Christmas Day bomber?  He was recruited and trained by al-awlaki.
 
2013-03-07 12:19:56 PM

Parthenogenetic: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Too late.

There's an article in this month's issue of National Geographic about drones.

[kxnet.images.worldnow.com image 265x388]

Here in Dayton, OH there is a thriving drone and sensor industry growing in the pork-laden soil surrounding the Wright-Patterson AFB.

I doubt armed drones will be deployed within the USA.  The drones will provide pervasive surveillance so that cops can shoot, pepper spray, and Taser pre-crime suspects in person, the old fashioned way.

It's for public safety, citizen.  Why are you against safety?


So when this is voted in unanimously, can we expect Scalia to express doubts that the decision was come to logically in a decision overturning the will of elected officials?

Or what?
 
2013-03-07 12:20:57 PM

Saiga410: Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.

Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.



Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.

Nice to see that you agree exactly with Obama and Holder on the use of drones.
 
2013-03-07 12:21:56 PM

sprgrss: If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.


Like this?

i5.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 12:22:03 PM
I see all the tiny minds who paint themselves as lib/con here glorifying ignorance, stupidity and the continued cluster fark of our current government.

Way to go, guys! Keep farking that chicken!
 
2013-03-07 12:22:09 PM

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: What the hell are you smoking? Who's been executed outside of enemy combatants* in Al Queada?

*remember the contex of when that word was first used?


Who determined they were enemy combatants? Was there evidence presented to a jury or judge convicting them of being an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed in an active war zone?



Frigging George Bush, you friggin moran.
 
2013-03-07 12:22:59 PM

LasersHurt: I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.

Defend your statement, but don't try to drag me down some unrelated path. You said something dumb - justify it.


Item 1: Barack Obama campaigned against holding suspected terrorists at GTMO to "uphold our values" of due process.

Item 2: Barack Obama orders/allows the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists without due process

You don't see a contradiction?


qorkfiend: Yes, it's Congress's fault for not revoking that ability and then complaining that the President is doing something they have legally empowered him to do.


So because the president has the authority to do it, it absolves him of any wrong-doing for using that power?
 
2013-03-07 12:23:11 PM

ficklefkrfark: /the (d) and (r) are like two drunks in a bar accusing each other of having a drinking problem.


And then going home and beating their wives who refuse to leave them because if they do, they are afraid that the other drunk will come over and rape them.
 
2013-03-07 12:23:36 PM

doubled99: I see all the tiny minds who paint themselves as lib/con here glorifying ignorance, stupidity and the continued cluster fark of our current government.

Way to go, guys! Keep farking that chicken!


The important thing is that you found a way to feel superior to both parties, while adding nothing to the thread yourself.
 
2013-03-07 12:23:44 PM

Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.


Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?
 
2013-03-07 12:24:00 PM

Lord_Baull: Frigging George Bush, you friggin moran.


George Bush is still directing drone strikes?
 
2013-03-07 12:24:24 PM

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: The problem with your being upset by this is that No, that's not what he's said, or what anyone has suggested. I have no idea where you would get this idea. This has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed.

So the CIA currently does not kill people in foreign countries via drone without judicial review?

I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.



No, no, he's just asking questions.
 
2013-03-07 12:24:33 PM

halfof33: The Benghazi terrorist attack, during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.

As Deputy National Security Brennan was also involved in coordinating the obviously false story that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest, even though the FBI, State Department AND CIA had evidence directly contradicting it.

\m/



There you go again.

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-03-07 12:25:00 PM

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.

Defend your statement, but don't try to drag me down some unrelated path. You said something dumb - justify it.

Item 1: Barack Obama campaigned against holding suspected terrorists at GTMO to "uphold our values" of due process.

Item 2: Barack Obama orders/allows the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists without due process

You don't see a contradiction?


No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.
 
2013-03-07 12:25:13 PM

doubled99: I see all the tiny minds who paint themselves as lib/con here glorifying ignorance, stupidity and the continued cluster fark of our current government.

Way to go, guys! Keep farking that chicken!


Is this the new Fark Independent(tm) party line?
 
2013-03-07 12:27:11 PM

jshine: Arkanaut: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.

Well, to "use" drones is a very ambiguous term...  I've got no real objection to drones being used for aerial surveillance in place of cops in helicopters (as is currently done).  Firing missiles is entirely different, and I wouldn't support that.


You'll get use to it.
 
2013-03-07 12:28:44 PM

jshine: qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?

Yea, I don't understand the objection...  Police have been watching people from helicopters for years -- why does taking the pilot out of the aircraft and controlling it via radio-link make it any better or worse?


Because of reasons, that's why.
 
2013-03-07 12:29:03 PM

PanicMan: Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.

Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?


I ask myself that all the time. We spend around 50 billion dollars a year on drug laws. What is another 30,000 at that point. (estimates on just marijuana range between 7 and 15 billion).
 
2013-03-07 12:29:15 PM

LasersHurt: No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.


What's 'the field'? RIght now it's anywhere in the world.

This is a small meeting in Yemen or Somalia.  There's no active war zone here.

You're fine with executing people and just trusting the CIA that they were bad people.  The CIA does have a flawless record of such things.
 
2013-03-07 12:29:27 PM

halfof33: The Benghazi terrorist attack, during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.

As Deputy National Security Brennan was also involved in coordinating the obviously false story that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest, even though the FBI, State Department AND CIA had evidence directly contradicting it.

\m/


Let's stipulate that as true.

So?
 
2013-03-07 12:30:49 PM

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: Frigging George Bush, you friggin moran.

George Bush is still directing drone strikes?



MugzyBrown: Who determined they were enemy combatants?



You have the memory retention of a teabagger. Good day, sir.
 
2013-03-07 12:31:01 PM

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.

What's 'the field'? RIght now it's anywhere in the world.

This is a small meeting in Yemen or Somalia.  There's no active war zone here.

You're fine with executing people and just trusting the CIA that they were bad people.  The CIA does have a flawless record of such things.


I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.
 
2013-03-07 12:31:26 PM

Karac: Saiga410: Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.

Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.

Nice to see that you agree exactly with Obama and Holder on the use of drones.


Then why are they not following it.  We have killed terrorists that were driving down the road... just driving down a road (similar to sitting in a cafe).  They at that point possed no threat.  The only justification is that they were to hard to get to to capture so we kill em.
 
2013-03-07 12:31:50 PM

Arkanaut: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.


If you watch President Obama's "fireside hangout" from a few weeks ago, he actually called on Congress to come up with clear rules about the use of drones on American soil.
 
2013-03-07 12:32:10 PM

Carth: PanicMan: Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.

Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?

I ask myself that all the time. We spend around 50 billion dollars a year on drug laws. What is another 30,000 at that point. (estimates on just marijuana range between 7 and 15 billion).



Friggin this.
 
2013-03-07 12:33:17 PM
This is one of those two times a day that the clock (Rand Paul) is right. I agree with TFA on that.... but I take issue with a LOT of the other shiat in that article. Seriously, Benghazi? The author brings up a legit point in one breath and then discredits themselves in the next by bringing up the Benghazi fauxtroversy.

And then there's this little gem:
And as for those pushing filibuster reform - in essence running interference for an administration that wants no push-back from any quarter on any nominee or legislation - they might take a good look at why the ability of the minority to hold up the majority is something we shouldn't easily cast aside.

Newsflash, dummy: Us who want fillibuster reform usually don't want to ELIMINATE the fillibuster at all. We want our lawmakers to actually be required to DO THEM and not just be able to shut everything down by threatening to.
 
2013-03-07 12:33:31 PM
I see all the tiny minds who paint themselves as lib/con here glorifying ignorance, stupidity and the continued cluster fark of our current government.

Way to go, guys! Keep farking that chicken!

Is this the new Fark Independent(tm) party line?



It'll do.
What are the Fark liberal(tm) and Fark conservative(tm) slogans?
Oh wait, my bad. That might require original thought, which should only be mocked.
 
2013-03-07 12:34:10 PM
Well if they don't circle the wagons, they might "end up regretting it."

Which is not a threat.  It's constructive criticism.
 
2013-03-07 12:35:37 PM

vygramul: So?


So, Brennan has no business being named the head of the CIA and his nomination should be rejected by the Senate.
 
2013-03-07 12:35:54 PM

anfrind: Arkanaut: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.

If you watch President Obama's "fireside hangout" from a few weeks ago, he actually called on Congress to come up with clear rules about the use of drones on American soil.



Shhhh. The Derp Squad is on a roll. Don't spoil their world view that Obama is a authoritarian dictator that jacks off to killing Americans on American soil.
 
2013-03-07 12:35:57 PM

PanicMan: Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.

Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?


Herbicidal flybys.

Kinda like they are doing in Columbia that has led to Roundup Resistant Coca plants.

//I wonder if people would smoke RR Marijuana?
 
2013-03-07 12:36:07 PM

Saiga410: Karac: Saiga410: Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.

Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.

Nice to see that you agree exactly with Obama and Holder on the use of drones.

Then why are they not following it.  We have killed terrorists that were driving down the road... just driving down a road (similar to sitting in a cafe).  They at that point possed no threat.  The only justification is that they were to hard to get to to capture so we kill em.


We've droned people sitting in cafes on American soil?  Why was I not told about this?
 
2013-03-07 12:37:35 PM

Talondel: sprgrss: If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.

Like this?

[i5.photobucket.com image 664x596]


Wow, a non-binding resolution that expresses current US and international law.  That's really going out on a limb here.
 
2013-03-07 12:39:11 PM

Talondel: sprgrss: If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.

Like this?

[i5.photobucket.com image 664x596]


That's a non-binding resolution, it's not a bill of law. It says the Senate doesn't think it's right for him to do so, but it does not forbid it. Political grandstanding.

I agree that no POTUS should have the power, it should be removed. This does not do that, it leaves it in place for a future president of either party, and that resolution goes down the drain with a new Congress. Why not just remove the powers Congress granted, unless he wants to keep them for a POTUS of his party and doesn't actually care about the rights being infringed upon? That's all trying to get a statement from this administration does, rule it out for the Dem POTUS while leaving it intact for another.
 
2013-03-07 12:39:21 PM

qorkfiend: Maybe Congress shouldn't have granted the power to make that determination solely to the executive in the first place. Maybe they should undo that, since they have the ability to do so.


I already have you favorited. I can't double-favorite you, geez.


St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.



This.
 
2013-03-07 12:40:14 PM

Lord_Baull: You have the memory retention of a teabagger. Good day, sir.


I'm sorry you can't follow a conversation.  It must be difficult in your day-to-day life.

LasersHurt: I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.


It's not difficult to hold people accountable for their corruption.  If you agreed that GTMO was an embarassment to the US, then you should be appalled at the current administration's use of drones, which everybody agrees has been greatly expanded in the past 4 years.

The CIA's history is filled with abuse of power, killing people outside the law, and have been grilled for it.  But now because you like Obama, you defend his policy.
 
2013-03-07 12:42:07 PM
pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-03-07 12:42:19 PM

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.

What's 'the field'? RIght now it's anywhere in the world.

This is a small meeting in Yemen or Somalia.  There's no active war zone here.

You're fine with executing people and just trusting the CIA that they were bad people.  The CIA does have a flawless record of such things.

I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.


It's fairly simple really. Captives vs. combatants. End of story. They don't necessarily need to be pointing a gun at someone to be engaged in hostilities, but once you've captured them and they can no longer carry out terrorist acts, there's really no reason to shoot them.

Is it bizarre that we have to explain this to people? Especially since 10 years ago, these were the "GLASS PARKING LOT" types who now insist that we eliminate terrorism through gentle cuddling.
 
2013-03-07 12:43:06 PM

halfof33: vygramul: So?

So, Brennan has no business being named the head of the CIA and his nomination should be rejected by the Senate.


What was the damage that was caused by his actions?
 
2013-03-07 12:43:29 PM

Carth: PanicMan: Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.

Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?

I ask myself that all the time. We spend around 50 billion dollars a year on drug laws. What is another 30,000 at that point. (estimates on just marijuana range between 7 and 15 billion).


Use a $30,000 missile with a napalm warhead to wipe out a field of devil weed with an estimated street value of $300 million**?  Oh yeah.  Totally cost effective.

If we hadn't pre-emptively destroyed that illegal marijuana, some of it could have been sold at the school that your kids attend!

** cop math
 
2013-03-07 12:43:34 PM

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.

It's not difficult to hold people accountable for their corruption.  If you agreed that GTMO was an embarassment to the US, then you should be appalled at the current administration's use of drones, which everybody agrees has been greatly expanded in the past 4 years.

The CIA's history is filled with abuse of power, killing people outside the law, and have been grilled for it.  But now because you like Obama, you defend his policy.


I do not have to agree with you, and you're kind of dumb for assuming I do. "It has to be interpreted this one way, and if you disagree, you're wrong and also love Obama."

Maybe I just think you're wrong?
 
2013-03-07 12:43:41 PM

anfrind: If you watch President Obama's "fireside hangout" from a few weeks ago, he actually called on Congress to come up with clear rules about the use of drones on American soil.


Obama doesn't need to wait for congress.  He is the chief executive.

He could issue an executive order that would require judicial review before the deadly use of force via a drone.

This would apply until another executive overturned the order, or until congress changed the law.

Any innocent blood killed by the drones since 2009 is on Obama's hands not congress's
 
2013-03-07 12:44:00 PM
Saiga410:  We have killed terrorists that were driving down the road... just driving down a road (similar to sitting in a cafe).  They at that point possed no threat.  The only justification is that they were to hard to get to to capture so we kill em.


Am I reading this right? You're lamenting that we took out an active Al-Queada member without the single loss of American lives because they weren't actually building a bomb at the time?
 
2013-03-07 12:44:08 PM
I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual famine, we will not cook and eat small children."
 
2013-03-07 12:45:15 PM
Front page of HuffPo is not effing around.
 
2013-03-07 12:45:17 PM

Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.


... because they have gunship helicopters and are totally allowed to do that now. Right?
 
2013-03-07 12:45:38 PM

LasersHurt: I do not have to agree with you, and you're kind of dumb for assuming I do. "It has to be interpreted this one way, and if you disagree, you're wrong and also love Obama."

Maybe I just think you're wrong?


I didn't say you have to agree with me, but you're hypocritical if you support the current drone program and criticized GTMO.
 
2013-03-07 12:46:01 PM
Can somebody explain to the derp brigade that drones are not the issue. The issue is can the U.S. use MILITARY weapons to kill U.S. citizens in America? The answer is no, unless there's an insurrection to put down (see Confederate States of America).
 
2013-03-07 12:47:09 PM

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.

What's 'the field'? RIght now it's anywhere in the world.

This is a small meeting in Yemen or Somalia.  There's no active war zone here.

You're fine with executing people and just trusting the CIA that they were bad people.  The CIA does have a flawless record of such things.

I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.


Its a matter of circumstance: if person A is in the process of pulling a gun to shoot person B, then a cop is justified in shooting A to prevent the murder.  That has been the law for -- well -- forever, as far as I'm aware (though IANAL).

Obviously its preferable to arrest A and send him/her to trial, but if there's an imminent threat to the life of a cop or another person, then police have the power to use deadly force to deal with that threat if necessary.
 
2013-03-07 12:47:25 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Front page of HuffPo is not effing around.


My problem with this is that some people seem to legitimately think we didn't have civilian casualties and nothing went wrong BEFORE drones.

I never see people comparing strikes by drone with old-school stikes with a team, or old style munitions.

It's like they think it's all new, as of now.
 
2013-03-07 12:47:54 PM

vygramul: halfof33: vygramul: So?

So, Brennan has no business being named the head of the CIA and his nomination should be rejected by the Senate.

What was the damage that was caused by his actions?



Not having access to Obama's time machine, nor the precognition it apparently requires.
 
2013-03-07 12:48:07 PM

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I do not have to agree with you, and you're kind of dumb for assuming I do. "It has to be interpreted this one way, and if you disagree, you're wrong and also love Obama."

Maybe I just think you're wrong?

I didn't say you have to agree with me, but you're hypocritical if you support the current drone program and criticized GTMO.


I think that's an absurd dichotomy to make, and not supported by any good sense or logic.
 
2013-03-07 12:48:32 PM

God's Hubris: Saiga410:  We have killed terrorists that were driving down the road... just driving down a road (similar to sitting in a cafe).  They at that point possed no threat.  The only justification is that they were to hard to get to to capture so we kill em.


Am I reading this right? You're lamenting that we took out an active Al-Queada member without the single loss of American lives because they weren't actually building a bomb at the time?


Am I reading this right?  You're assuming somebody is guilty of being an active Al-Qaeda member solely on the fact that they were called one by the people who killed him?  You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.
 
2013-03-07 12:48:53 PM

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: You have the memory retention of a teabagger. Good day, sir.

I'm sorry you can't follow a conversation.  It must be difficult in your day-to-day life.



Shine on, you precious little flower.
 
2013-03-07 12:50:24 PM

jshine: Its a matter of circumstance: if person A is in the process of pulling a gun to shoot person B, then a cop is justified in shooting A to prevent the murder. That has been the law for -- well -- forever, as far as I'm aware (though IANAL).

Obviously its preferable to arrest A and send him/her to trial, but if there's an imminent threat to the life of a cop or another person, then police have the power to use deadly force to deal with that threat if necessary.


How is your scenario of imminent threat to the life of a cop comparable to two guys in a car in Yemen?
 
2013-03-07 12:51:28 PM

Lee451: The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.

/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!


How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning without assistance?
 
2013-03-07 12:51:44 PM
fc06.deviantart.net
 
2013-03-07 12:54:22 PM

Karac: We've droned people sitting in cafes on American soil? Why was I not told about this?


The report on that attack was hidden, along with those plans for the shipping of weapons to Turkey out of Libya. Everybody thought it was hidden, but they didn't count on Rand Paul finding it.
 
2013-03-07 12:54:47 PM

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I do not have to agree with you, and you're kind of dumb for assuming I do. "It has to be interpreted this one way, and if you disagree, you're wrong and also love Obama."

Maybe I just think you're wrong?

I didn't say you have to agree with me, but you're hypocritical if you support the current drone program and criticized GTMO.

I think that's an absurd dichotomy to make, and not supported by any good sense or logic.


Mugzy makes perfect sense if your worldview is formed entirely by political commentators but you ignore any other sort of expert in every field ever.
 
2013-03-07 12:55:00 PM

vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?


four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.
 
2013-03-07 12:56:14 PM
 
2013-03-07 12:56:32 PM

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: You have the memory retention of a teabagger. Good day, sir.

I'm sorry you can't follow a conversation.  It must be difficult in your day-to-day life.

LasersHurt: I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.

It's not difficult to hold people accountable for their corruption.  If you agreed that GTMO was an embarassment to the US, then you should be appalled at the current administration's use of drones, which everybody agrees has been greatly expanded in the past 4 years.

The CIA's history is filled with abuse of power, killing people outside the law, and have been grilled for it.  But now because you like Obama, you defend his policy.


Do you suffer under the delusion that, in the absence of drones, the military would hold trials in the battlefield before shooting at anybody?
 
2013-03-07 12:56:56 PM

theorellior: Lee451: The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.

/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!

How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning without assistance?


Trolls be trollin'.
 
2013-03-07 01:00:12 PM

trisarahtops: Do you suffer under the delusion that, in the absence of drones, the military would hold trials in the battlefield before shooting at anybody?


How does this compare to 2 guys in a car in Yemen?
 
2013-03-07 01:00:48 PM

halfof33: vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?

four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.


Seriously, its just a pile of bloody feathers now.
 
2013-03-07 01:02:03 PM

MugzyBrown: Any innocent blood killed by the drones since 2009 is on Obama's hands not congress's



I'm not sure if I should go with the inigo montaya.jpg, the quizzical dog.jpg, or the successful troll.jpg.
 
2013-03-07 01:04:10 PM
halfof33: vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?
 
four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.

Why isn't this man on trial for murder??!!
 
2013-03-07 01:05:50 PM

MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.



You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?
 
2013-03-07 01:06:36 PM
For all the harping on about everything and partisan accusations, the facts are this: Paul and the Republicans are grandstanding, or they'd push a law to remove the powers Congress authorized. No poison pills, no non-binding resolutions. No push for a ruling-out by this administration only to leave it for future (possibly their team) ones. Until then, it's all just rhetoric to try and embarrass the current administration, and nothing more.
 
2013-03-07 01:07:19 PM

SilentStrider: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

Without clicking the link, I knew it would be something from her.


it's the obligatory weekly neocon sponsored fark link
 
2013-03-07 01:08:02 PM

CPennypacker: halfof33: vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?

four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.

Seriously, its just a pile of bloody feathers now.


i13.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 01:08:48 PM

NeoCortex42: MugzyBrown: So because congress wouldn't let him close GTMO, he has decided rather than put people on trial, he'll just kill them?

When has that ever been on the table?  All Holder said was that drones could be used in the case of an imminent threat.  How is piloting a drone any different than authorizing lethal force for a sniper or SWAT team?


because drone sounds scary. and Obama uses them.
 
2013-03-07 01:09:04 PM

God's Hubris: MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.


You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?


Sweet, can we start firebombing the poor?  War on poverty and all that.
 
2013-03-07 01:09:09 PM
My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"
 
2013-03-07 01:09:44 PM
Rand Paul is weak on terror.
Bad for America
 
2013-03-07 01:10:19 PM

ValisIV: For all the harping on about everything and partisan accusations, the facts are this: Paul and the Republicans are grandstanding, or they'd push a law to remove the powers Congress authorized. No poison pills, no non-binding resolutions. No push for a ruling-out by this administration only to leave it for future (possibly their team) ones. Until then, it's all just rhetoric to try and embarrass the current administration, and nothing more.



I'm totally not voting for Obama in 2014.
 
2013-03-07 01:11:39 PM

Saiga410: God's Hubris: MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.

You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?

Sweet, can we start firebombing the poor?  War on poverty and all that.



Are you even trying?
 
2013-03-07 01:14:20 PM

ValisIV: For all the harping on about everything and partisan accusations, the facts are this: Paul and the Republicans are grandstanding, or they'd push a law to remove the powers Congress authorized. No poison pills, no non-binding resolutions. No push for a ruling-out by this administration only to leave it for future (possibly their team) ones. Until then, it's all just rhetoric to try and embarrass the current administration, and nothing more.


Rand Paul also doesn't realize drone usage in the US is more of a 4th amendment issue, rather than a 5th amendment one.
 
2013-03-07 01:14:24 PM
The world we love in: the left and right wing of the political spectrum has literally changed the exact same spots they were in the 2000s

"fark off with that patriotic act nonsense that only happens when you're a terrorist! Barking moonbat libs!"
 
2013-03-07 01:15:12 PM

halfof33: vygramul: What was the damage that was caused by his actions?

four people were killed in Benghazi and many were injured, the consulate and annex were destroyed, and the perpetrators are presently not in custody.


You're violating the temporal order.

What was the damage that was caused by this actions?
 
2013-03-07 01:18:11 PM

Talondel: sprgrss: If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.

Like this?

[i5.photobucket.com image 664x596]



A Sense of the Senate Resolution asking the President to explain himself is not legislation.
 
2013-03-07 01:18:26 PM

vygramul: You're violating the temporal order.

What was the damage that was caused by this actions?


No I am not. We have already stipulated that: The Benghazi terrorist attack was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.
 
2013-03-07 01:20:52 PM
I for one am actually quite surprised the number of farkers who are ok with the idea that a cheetos eating kid sitting on a sofa some 500 miles away in an AFB somewhere has the legal authorization to kill Americans on American soil.
 
2013-03-07 01:20:53 PM

Saiga410: God's Hubris: MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.


You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?

Sweet, can we start firebombing the poor?  War on poverty and all that.


Well, I think we should attack the lower classes, first using bombs and artillery to send them scurrying helplessly from their homes, and then mowing them down with machine guns.  And then, of course, releasing the vultures.

Now, I realize that my views are unpopular, but I have never courted popularity.
 
2013-03-07 01:24:45 PM

anfrind: Saiga410: God's Hubris: MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.


You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?

Sweet, can we start firebombing the poor?  War on poverty and all that.

Well, I think we should attack the lower classes, first using bombs and artillery to send them scurrying helplessly from their homes, and then mowing them down with machine guns.  And then, of course, releasing the vultures.

Now, I realize that my views are unpopular, but I have never courted popularity.


Popularity is for proles.
 
2013-03-07 01:24:46 PM

Ghastly: My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"



There is actually a difference. The technological advance does open the door to some new problems.

Helicopters are expensive, loud, must be operated only by highly trained professionals and carry the slight inherent increased risk of rotary aircrafts' complexity. Police generally have to be pretty serious when they want to use them.

Drones, on the other hand, bring with them the possibility of changing that landscape significantly. They're potentially much cheaper, operated by anyone, risk no personel when they are used and can be much quiter. Drones have the potential to be used for 24/hour surveilance of people without the necessity of a warrant. Yes, a helicopter can surveil you as well as a drone can..... for a time, and it's easy to notice the helicopter. The drones can potentially loiter for much longer, be far less noticeable, and since they're potentially MUCH cheaper a PD could have a whole fleet of them, so they could watch someone's every move 24/7. Without needing to get a warrant since current law doesn't generally cover their use.
 
2013-03-07 01:26:29 PM

RexTalionis: St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.

The only people who comment on her columns are people who mock her for being a moron.

Seriously, check the comments for any of her past columns. The only page views she gets are from people who think she's such a massive idiot that they have to tell her off.


I'm sure her bottom line appreciates the distinction.

/sometimes trolls get paid instead of fed
 
2013-03-07 01:26:36 PM
As opposed to circling the wagons around the last administration, which was necessary to protect America from bin Laden.
 
2013-03-07 01:27:03 PM
Remember how when you were a kid you would narrate your actions like a sports commentator? "Clambam moves in from the outside, he shoots, he scores... touchdown!" (suffice to say I was not athletic). The repubs are the same way. Each one moves around in a self-narrated movie in which evil brown people get mowed down by your righteously wielded concealed carry, where the bad guy looks at you in dawning disbelief and terror as you pronounce "Immunity... revoked!", where the president tearfully pins the Medal of Honor on your blood-stained camos after you single-handedly fight off the Red Menace while Michelle Malkin makes "call me" gestures in the background. For thirteen glorious hours Rand Paul got to pretend he was Jimmy Stewart. The eyes of the nation were upon him, it was a glorious validation of his superior moral fiber and dedication. It accomplished nothing, except to provide him with some video for his next campaign. He delayed John Brennan's confirmation by exactly zero hours. Just when he could have demonstrated his commitment to his principles, he called it quits because he had to pee. He is a hero in his own mind, and those of his followers. Actually accomplishing something is beside the point--he fulfilled the cinematic requirements for heroism, who cares about the actual ones?  Rand Paul is an attention whore.
 
2013-03-07 01:27:16 PM

halfof33: vygramul: You're violating the temporal order.

What was the damage that was caused by this actions?

No I am not. We have already stipulated that: The Benghazi terrorist attack was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.



Fantastic! Using your own logic, you've admitted 9/11 was Bush I's fault.
 
2013-03-07 01:28:26 PM

qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?


The problem I have with this law specifically is unlike other technologies, a drone by it's very definition is self automated and self guiding. The only reason it isn;t yet is because our technologies hasn;t caught up to it. When you pass a law (especially one involves the taking of lives!!) you have to think of the future and possible unintended consequences.

Sure, you might argue... a cop can still get on a chopper and kill you from the air not unlike a drone today BUT 30 yrs from now when AI and raw processing power is good enough the drone can eliminate you based on algorithms and scans that it itself determines. The cop on the other hand while having a better gun and helicopter etc will still have the same fundamentals as today or yesterday's cops.

hope you see a difference. I do.
 
2013-03-07 01:29:41 PM
The Obama administration really is the modern 3rd Reich.

They are doing an unprecedented assault on the Bill of Rights:
   1st Amendment speech
   1st Amendment assembly
   2nd Amendment
   4th Amendment search
   4th Amendment seizure

And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?  This is the creepiest person in American History.
 
2013-03-07 01:33:41 PM

dickfreckle: Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Paul's accusation of the media circling wagons is true. Fox is by all accounts the top-rated 'news' channel out there. Does anyone tune into Brian Williams with the same sort of zeal they do Fox? No, it's just the news, usually just playing in the background. Do people specifically tune in because he's helping to circle the wagons around Obama?

Do people tune into CNN for any other reason but a missing white girl or a sinkhole that killed a guy?

And even MSNBC - does anyone actually watch it? I'm one of the biggest libtards here and I've only seen it through Maddow clips posted at Fark. When I still used cable I had it, but never bothered with it.

Who, precisely, is this media circling the wagons when you guys own the most powerful infotainment/propaganda machine out there? Can't have it both ways.


Oh, yes they can.  Take a good serious look at "news" in the USA.  It's a joke.  It's a total and utter joke.  There isn't enough FACT in a newspaper to print a single page worth.  There aren't ANY facts on TV news.

It's not so different in most countries.  But you know something, there is at least one top notch news service in the world.  Al Jazzera.  Irony, though art a cruel mistress.
 
2013-03-07 01:34:24 PM

aegean: This is the creepiest person in American History.


Don't worry, little troll. Even if that were true, you wouldn't have far to catch up.
 
2013-03-07 01:34:40 PM

SuperNinjaToad: qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?

The problem I have with this law specifically is unlike other technologies, a drone by it's very definition is self automated and self guiding. The only reason it isn;t yet is because our technologies hasn;t caught up to it. When you pass a law (especially one involves the taking of lives!!) you have to think of the future and possible unintended consequences.

Sure, you might argue... a cop can still get on a chopper and kill you from the air not unlike a drone today BUT 30 yrs from now when AI and raw processing power is good enough the drone can eliminate you based on algorithms and scans that it itself determines. The cop on the other hand while having a better gun and helicopter etc will still have the same fundamentals as today or yesterday's cops.

hope you see a difference. I do.


The tech is there now. It will never be employed however as human oversight is always a good idea, and I think we can all agree there. Even with the tech, never will we let AI scan for and determine targets and dispense justice without human review.
 
2013-03-07 01:34:52 PM

aegean: The Obama administration really is the modern 3rd Reich.

They are doing an unprecedented assault on the Bill of Rights:
   1st Amendment speech
   1st Amendment assembly
   2nd Amendment
   4th Amendment search
   4th Amendment seizure

And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?  This is the creepiest person in American History.


Wow, you convinced me. Who do I send all my money to?
 
2013-03-07 01:35:33 PM

aegean: The Obama administration really is the modern 3rd Reich.

They are doing an unprecedented assault on the Bill of Rights:
   1st Amendment speech
   1st Amendment assembly
   2nd Amendment
   4th Amendment search
   4th Amendment seizure

And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?  This is the creepiest person in American History.


He truly is worse than Hitler.


conservativenewager.files.wordpress.com

 
2013-03-07 01:35:54 PM
SuperNinjaToad:

The problem I have with this law specifically is unlike other technologies, a drone by it's very definition is self automated and self guiding. The only reason it isn;t yet is because our technologies hasn;t caught up to it. When you pass a law (especially one involves the taking of lives!!) you have to think of the future and possible unintended consequences.

Sure, you might argue... a cop can still get on a chopper and kill you from the air not unlike a drone today BUT 30 yrs from now when AI and raw processing power is good enough the drone can eliminate you based on algorithms and scans that it itself determines. The cop on the other hand while having a better gun and helicopter etc will still have the same fundamentals as today or yesterday's cops.

hope you see a difference. I do.



Glad to see I'm not the only one who look down the road instead of current implementation. Imagine a peaceful protest where suddenly dozens of drones are circling overhead ready to deploy pepper spray, tazer, rubber bullets or some other crowd control at once. That is just not a country I want to be apart of.

Look at what the Seattle mayor did, and banned them from the city.
 
2013-03-07 01:36:09 PM

aegean: And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?


Yup, in accordance with the NDAA Congress passed 2 years ago. Congress can still update that, you know - and Obama will be just as bound by the 2013 NDAA as he was by the 2011 version.

// the First was beaten to death in a Free Speech Zone sometime in 2005
// the Fourth and Fifth were taken behind the barn with a .30-30 after Nixon caught them smoking pot together behind the school
 
2013-03-07 01:36:50 PM
Dick Durbin made sure to stay and try and troll the filibuster, with predictable results.  Aligning himself and his party with the American assassination movement is pretty bizarre.
 
2013-03-07 01:37:27 PM

Kahabut: Oh, yes they can. Take a good serious look at "news" in the USA. It's a joke. It's a total and utter joke. There isn't enough FACT in a newspaper to print a single page worth. There aren't ANY facts on TV news.

It's not so different in most countries. But you know something, there is at least one top notch news service in the world. Al Jazzera. Irony, though art a cruel mistress.



There are others as well.
 
2013-03-07 01:38:40 PM

mongbiohazard: Ghastly: My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"


There is actually a difference. The technological advance does open the door to some new problems.

Helicopters are expensive, loud, must be operated only by highly trained professionals and carry the slight inherent increased risk of rotary aircrafts' complexity. Police generally have to be pretty serious when they want to use them.

Drones, on the other hand, bring with them the possibility of changing that landscape significantly. They're potentially much cheaper, operated by anyone, risk no personel when they are used and can be much quiter. Drones have the potential to be used for 24/hour surveilance of people without the necessity of a warrant. Yes, a helicopter can surveil you as well as a drone can..... for a time, and it's easy to notice the helicopter. The drones can potentially loiter for much longer, be far less noticeable, and since they're potentially MUCH cheaper a PD could have a whole fleet of them, so they could watch someone's every move 24/7. Without needing to get a warrant since current law doesn't generally cover their use.


Yep. People should be worried about their 4th amendment rights here. Republicans have a convenient moment to exploit a hypothetical situation, but I haven't seen them address any concern about poor state regulation over UAVs, nor have I seen anything on their part to remove the conditions under which we started employing drones so heavily in the first place.
 
2013-03-07 01:39:13 PM

MyRandomName: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

Since when do new laws need to be created to remove unconstitutional action? I would love to hear your scenario that would provide a constitutional acceptable drone attack on an american citizen in the u.s.


An American Citizen hijacks a flight in Boston and is about to crash the plane into a building on purpose.
 
2013-03-07 01:42:17 PM
Out of all the photos, did they really have to pick the one where the guy's doing a blowjob motion?
 
2013-03-07 01:42:33 PM

Lord_Baull: Fantastic! Using your own logic, you've admitted 9/11 was Bush I's fault.


While not agreeing with your analysis at all, I suspect that you meant Clinton (he was the one who hit Al Qaeda with cruise missiles in August of 1998)
 
2013-03-07 01:48:23 PM

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.

Defend your statement, but don't try to drag me down some unrelated path. You said something dumb - justify it.

Item 1: Barack Obama campaigned against holding suspected terrorists at GTMO to "uphold our values" of due process.

Item 2: Barack Obama orders/allows the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists without due process

You don't see a contradiction?


qorkfiend: Yes, it's Congress's fault for not revoking that ability and then complaining that the President is doing something they have legally empowered him to do.

So because the president has the authority to do it, it absolves him of any wrong-doing for using that power?


Not having the responsibility OR the power to undo it means that he's not responsible for undoing it.
 
2013-03-07 01:50:04 PM

St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.


We need a new law to determine if it is ok to execute Americans without a trial?
 
2013-03-07 01:52:12 PM
Wasn't expecting much from the Farker crowd, but is nobody even a little bit upset that there was discussion about killing Americans by the American government without involving the due process of the law?  That they decided
"we're cool with this"?

Who am I supposed to be more disappointed in now?  The liberals who have lost the zeal for civil rights or the conservatives who don't just want to shoot them some terrorists?
 
2013-03-07 01:53:05 PM
this was my first thought when I heard douche Paul was going to filibuster...


Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
2013-03-07 01:53:05 PM

Nutsac_Jim: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

We need a new law to determine if it is ok to execute Americans without a trial?


No law needed apparently.  Those noble OWS people should be assembling any minute now.  Chris Matthews outrage is just moments away......
 
2013-03-07 01:58:20 PM
"Where, for that matter, are the mainstream media and the liberal punditocracy that would be calling for impeachment about now if a Republican president had done all this?"

I'm sorry, how is this equivalent to a band of corporately owned puppets (Cheney and Turd Blossom) lying us into attacking a neutral country for no reason?

Rand Paul is a halfwit.
 
2013-03-07 02:00:27 PM

hitlersbrain: "Where, for that matter, are the mainstream media and the liberal punditocracy that would be calling for impeachment about now if a Republican president had done all this?"

I'm sorry, how is this equivalent to a band of corporately owned puppets (Cheney and Turd Blossom) lying us into attacking a neutral country for no reason?

Rand Paul is a halfwit.


Weapons grade spin-meistering is impressive.
 
2013-03-07 02:01:55 PM

The_Forensicator: No law needed apparently. Those noble OWS people should be assembling any minute now. Chris Matthews outrage is just moments away......


Oh, you mean the people wh the cons marginalized as "lefty looneys" until it was time to start working on those 2016 campaigns in an attmempt to build a facade that you reach out to both sides of the aisle? Yeah, it's weird how the GOP is seen as disingenuous for some reason.

But, I'll bet Rand Paul's different. I'll bet he's a compassionate kinda conservative, the type I could have a beer with.
 
2013-03-07 02:03:34 PM

splohn: Wasn't expecting much from the Farker crowd, but is nobody even a little bit upset that there was discussion about killing Americans by the American government without involving the due process of the law?  That they decided
"we're cool with this"?

Who am I supposed to be more disappointed in now?  The liberals who have lost the zeal for civil rights or the conservatives who don't just want to shoot them some terrorists?


I'm very disappointed. It's like when Sen. Paul's father started talking about this kind of stuff. There were valid points in there, but they're buried beneath so much derp, and the messenger is so flawed, that nothing will come of it. I really don't like the fact we have a gigantic military deployed in 5 geographic commands to "protect" our nation. I don't like that there's little domestic regulation over UAV employment. I don't like that the serious 4th amendment issues with loitering, 24/7, warrantless surveillance aren't being addressed. I am also concerned with Sen. Paul's specific contention, that of UAV usage to kill another American on American soil, but I'm somewhat mollified by Holder's statement that such a thing is very unlikely. Even still, there's not much guidance on it outside Holder's memo.

That's the problem. Legislators need to be answering these questions with better regulation. They're not, and they aren't doing so because they're banking on their guy one day being in charge, and having these powers at his disposal to enact their party's agenda.
 
2013-03-07 02:04:48 PM
pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-03-07 02:04:56 PM

Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.


If GW had done it, you would have supported it, so there's that.
 
2013-03-07 02:04:58 PM

EyeballKid: The_Forensicator: No law needed apparently. Those noble OWS people should be assembling any minute now. Chris Matthews outrage is just moments away......

Oh, you mean the people wh the cons marginalized as "lefty looneys" until it was time to start working on those 2016 campaigns in an attmempt to build a facade that you reach out to both sides of the aisle? Yeah, it's weird how the GOP is seen as disingenuous for some reason.

But, I'll bet Rand Paul's different. I'll bet he's a compassionate kinda conservative, the type I could have a beer with.


I bet you're a hit a parties.
 
2013-03-07 02:06:35 PM

Nutsac_Jim: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

We need a new law to determine if it is ok to execute Americans without a trial?


What do you think happens every time a police officer shoots someone?
 
2013-03-07 02:07:56 PM

splohn: Wasn't expecting much from the Farker crowd, but is nobody even a little bit upset that there was discussion about killing Americans by the American government without involving the due process of the law?  That they decided
"we're cool with this"?

Who am I supposed to be more disappointed in now?  The liberals who have lost the zeal for civil rights or the conservatives who don't just want to shoot them some terrorists?


America kills people all the time without due process of law, and in fact the due process of law has led to many, many executions of innocent people. And if the COngress doesn't like it,. they can pass a law against it. Which the President will just violate if he feels like it, same as Reagan did.
 
2013-03-07 02:10:07 PM

qorkfiend: What do you think happens every time a police officer shoots someone?


They get to the bonus level?
 
2013-03-07 02:11:43 PM

splohn: Wasn't expecting much from the Farker crowd, but is nobody even a little bit upset that there was discussion about killing Americans by the American government without involving the due process of the law?  That they decided
"we're cool with this"?

Who am I supposed to be more disappointed in now?  The liberals who have lost the zeal for civil rights or the conservatives who don't just want to shoot them some terrorists?


It's actually old news at this point.  A lot of people were (and still are) upset about the blatantly unconstitutional provisions of the 2012 NDAA, to say nothing of Bush's signing statements et al., but none of that outrage seems to have made any difference.  Nor will it make any difference as long as either major party is willing to put its own interests above the good of the country.
 
2013-03-07 02:12:31 PM

Nutsac_Jim: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

We need a new law to determine if it is ok to execute Americans without a trial?


Police and other LEOs have been getting away with this for years, with very few repercussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_off ic ers_in_the_United_States
 
2013-03-07 02:13:11 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [pbs.twimg.com image 617x857]


Why kill them? He'll just put them in a FEMA camp for "re-education".
 
2013-03-07 02:15:16 PM

verbaltoxin: theorellior: Lee451: The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.

/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!

How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning without assistance?

Trolls be trollin'.


We must DRIVE those page clicks, Heyahh!! *CRACK*.....HEYAHH!! ..*CRACK*...

www.stagecoachmoving.net

FULL DERP AHEAD...MAN THE DERPEDOES!!!!

www.navy.mil
 
2013-03-07 02:18:37 PM

Maud Dib: verbaltoxin: theorellior: Lee451: The use of drones by the government on American soil by the Obamanation and his henchmen was the reason for the filibuster. Preventing another Eric Holder-type appointment.

/But he IS the Obama! He's allowed to sell government seats and access!

How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning without assistance?

Trolls be trollin'.

We must DRIVE those page clicks, Heyahh!! *CRACK*.....HEYAHH!! ..*CRACK*...

[www.stagecoachmoving.net image 706x479]

FULL DERP AHEAD...MAN THE DERPEDOES!!!!

[www.navy.mil image 297x192]


Drew needs beer money. It's why they bug you about disabling ad-block, even though it's well-known many Farkers do this from work, and some have restricted privileges over things like ad-block settings.
 
2013-03-07 02:20:58 PM

Rand Paul announces on @cnn he is dropping his opposition to Brennan's nomination.

- Vaughn Sterling/CNN (@vplus) March 7, 2013
 
2013-03-07 02:21:08 PM
The bit about this filibuster that pisses me the hell off is not just that Senate Republicans refuse to confirm Brennan. Hell, it isn't that John "Walnuts" McCain said "We aren't going to confirm him until we know exactly what happened in BENGHAZI!" What pisses me off is that everyone is claiming that the 13-hour filibuster was all done by one Senator from Kentucky.

It wasn't. I counted at least three Senators who took up time in the Senate chamber. Oh sure, Rand Paul (who the hell names their kid that, by the way?) spoke for a while, but he eventually let someone else speak. I'd actually be impressed if he had spoken for thirteen hours without pause, but the fact is that he didn't. And guess who had to pay for it? The American taxpayers--the ones who need the government to provide essential services while that same government collectively says "Yeah, screw that. We're going to stage a media spectacular."

Also, I have heard no mention that any of the few Senators who talked broke out anything interesting, like a recipe for chicken soup. (Rubio spoke, so maybe he could have given his mamita's recipe for tortilla soup--my sister-in-law's grandmother had an awesome one.)

And now I'm hungry.
 
2013-03-07 02:21:43 PM

clambam: Remember how when you were a kid you would narrate your actions like a sports commentator? "Clambam moves in from the outside, he shoots, he scores... touchdown!" (suffice to say I was not athletic). The repubs are the same way. Each one moves around in a self-narrated movie in which evil brown people get mowed down by your righteously wielded concealed carry, where the bad guy looks at you in dawning disbelief and terror as you pronounce "Immunity... revoked!", where the president tearfully pins the Medal of Honor on your blood-stained camos after you single-handedly fight off the Red Menace while Michelle Malkin makes "call me" gestures in the background. For thirteen glorious hours Rand Paul got to pretend he was Jimmy Stewart. The eyes of the nation were upon him, it was a glorious validation of his superior moral fiber and dedication. It accomplished nothing, except to provide him with some video for his next campaign. He delayed John Brennan's confirmation by exactly zero hours. Just when he could have demonstrated his commitment to his principles, he called it quits because he had to pee. He is a hero in his own mind, and those of his followers. Actually accomplishing something is beside the point--he fulfilled the cinematic requirements for heroism, who cares about the actual ones?  Rand Paul is an attention whore.


Well, you just got Farkied.

cl.jroo.me
 
2013-03-07 02:21:45 PM
Blah Blah Blah Drones, Blah Blah Blah 'Murican soil Blah Blah Blah
SWAT Units have had these non aerial drones for a few years now.
Runt Paul your patriotic rhetoric is moot.
img169.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-07 02:22:11 PM

mongbiohazard: Ghastly: My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"


There is actually a difference. The technological advance does open the door to some new problems.

Helicopters are expensive, loud, must be operated only by highly trained professionals and carry the slight inherent increased risk of rotary aircrafts' complexity. Police generally have to be pretty serious when they want to use them.

Drones, on the other hand, bring with them the possibility of changing that landscape significantly. They're potentially much cheaper, operated by anyone, risk no personel when they are used and can be much quiter. Drones have the potential to be used for 24/hour surveilance of people without the necessity of a warrant. Yes, a helicopter can surveil you as well as a drone can..... for a time, and it's easy to notice the helicopter. The drones can potentially loiter for much longer, be far less noticeable, and since they're potentially MUCH cheaper a PD could have a whole fleet of them, so they could watch someone's every move 24/7. Without needing to get a warrant since current law doesn't generally cover their use.


It's kind of like those people that insist spamming email accounts is the EXACT same thing as sending unsolicited mail through USPS.
 
2013-03-07 02:23:13 PM

halfof33: vygramul: You're violating the temporal order.

What was the damage that was caused by this actions?

No I am not. We have already stipulated that: The Benghazi terrorist attack was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.


You don't approve of using JSOC forces to attack Islamic militants? I'm not sure I'm comfortable suggesting that we should wait for orders before firing on known terrorists. I thought that was one of the mistakes of the Clinton era - that we had bin Laden in our sights but didn't fire because the officers did not feel empowered to make that call without consulting higher authorities. Had they killed bin Laden, the world might well be a very different place today, but knowing what we know now, it seems it would have been at minimum forgivable, if not laudable. So how can we apply a different standard here?
 
2013-03-07 02:23:28 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Rand Paul announces on @cnn he is dropping his opposition to Brennan's nomination.- Vaughn Sterling/CNN (@vplus) March 7, 2013


Obama got to him, too.
 
2013-03-07 02:24:48 PM
My question is:

Where the hell is everyone else?

The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity. This is Obama's "torture memo" - and take a look at our representatives. Literally ONE has been willing to stand up, and only a small handful are willing to support him.

Where is everyone? Why is almost no-one willing to call an unconstitutional power grab what it is? Where are the Democrats to pull the president from their party back in line?

Instead we have everyone falling all over themselves to defend the president's actions - most of them people who would have called it a scandal if it had been done by Bush!
 
2013-03-07 02:26:15 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Rand Paul announces on @cnn he is dropping his opposition to Brennan's nomination.- Vaughn Sterling/CNN (@vplus) March 7, 2013

 
2013-03-07 02:27:54 PM
The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."
 
2013-03-07 02:29:56 PM
Rand Paul deserves the HERO tag.

He was in opposition to a law which allows the USG to attack unarmed civilians via drone with no trial, no arrest, no nothing, simply on the basis that they MIGHT be up to no good.

That would include Moslems, political dissenters, pot growers, just about anyone they don't like.

Politics has nothing to do with it, this administration is totally out of control,
 
2013-03-07 02:30:36 PM

adamatari: Where is everyone? Why is almost no-one willing to call an unconstitutional power grab what it is? Where are the Democrats to pull the president from their party back in line?


img.rp.vhd.me
"FROM YOU, ALRIGHT?! I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU!!!"

/see, we're at war, and Obama's a "war president"
/if you're not with us, you're against us
/why do you hate our freedoms?
/liberals knew what to expect when impeachment/war crimes prosecution were taken off the table
 
2013-03-07 02:31:06 PM

Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."


Think of that one all by your self there chief?
 
2013-03-07 02:32:16 PM

vygramul: So how can we apply a different standard here?


1. You have stipulated that Brennan was operating outside the command structure

2. you have stipulated that the CIA and State department were not apprised of the attacks, and therefore, additional security precautions were not taken in Libya.
 
2013-03-07 02:33:21 PM

GAT_00: You idiot, that's what a filibuster is: someone rambling on by themselves.  And this wasn't even a proper one, he had like a dozen Senators helping him out.


THIS. I agree that we need to limit drone use, publicly, and hell, I'd prefer to get rid of drones altogether (because if you're gonna shoot someone in the head, then the shooter needs to be a real, breathing human being, that isn't a very effective safeguard but it's at least  something), but if you're going to fillibuster, do it right. Break out the phone book and Justin Beiber tweets.
 
2013-03-07 02:34:56 PM

olddinosaur: Rand Paul deserves the HERO tag.

He was in opposition to a law which allows the USG to attack unarmed civilians via drone with no trial, no arrest, no nothing, simply on the basis that they MIGHT be up to no good.

That would include Moslems, political dissenters, pot growers, just about anyone they don't like.

Politics has nothing to do with it, this administration is totally out of control,


Cite one example of drones being used against anyone not suspected of direct involvement with terrorism.

If you want to make a slippery slope/let's get our laws ahead of technology for once instead of being decades behind like now sort of argument, fine. Pissing and moaning and spewing derp everywhere just gums of the conversation and makes you look more inbred than a Targaryen.

So if you wanted to contribute to taking a dump in a politics thread at least you succeeded there.
 
2013-03-07 02:39:42 PM

adamatari: The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity.


Dumb, deliberately obtuse, troll or crazy?

Anyone wanna make the call here?
 
2013-03-07 02:41:42 PM

Mr_Fabulous: adamatari: The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity.

Dumb, deliberately obtuse, troll or crazy?

Anyone wanna make the call here?


Being the trailing edge of a green politics thread, it's probably a little bit of everything you named.
 
2013-03-07 02:41:56 PM

Mr_Fabulous: adamatari: The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity.

Dumb, deliberately obtuse, troll or crazy?

Anyone wanna make the call here?


Deliberately obtuse.
 
2013-03-07 02:42:02 PM
"...the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House"

Swear to God, it feels like I'm the only one who has a memory longer than 7 years.

i.imgur.com

Hey, did you hear the Dixie Chicks said they're ""not proud" of the President?  BURRRRRN THEM!!!
 
2013-03-07 02:43:20 PM

ChuDogg: mongbiohazard: Ghastly: My thinking is if it's a mission that is currently acceptable for a police or military helicopter to perform over American soil then why the hell shouldn't that mission be acceptable for a drone other than "OMG! Scary kill-bots hunting us down like Sarah Conner!"


There is actually a difference. The technological advance does open the door to some new problems.

Helicopters are expensive, loud, must be operated only by highly trained professionals and carry the slight inherent increased risk of rotary aircrafts' complexity. Police generally have to be pretty serious when they want to use them.

Drones, on the other hand, bring with them the possibility of changing that landscape significantly. They're potentially much cheaper, operated by anyone, risk no personel when they are used and can be much quiter. Drones have the potential to be used for 24/hour surveilance of people without the necessity of a warrant. Yes, a helicopter can surveil you as well as a drone can..... for a time, and it's easy to notice the helicopter. The drones can potentially loiter for much longer, be far less noticeable, and since they're potentially MUCH cheaper a PD could have a whole fleet of them, so they could watch someone's every move 24/7. Without needing to get a warrant since current law doesn't generally cover their use.

It's kind of like those people that insist spamming email accounts is the EXACT same thing as sending unsolicited mail through USPS.


That's actually a pretty good analogy, I think.

The snail mail stuff costs real money... advertisers have to be serious enough about it to spend that money that they will need to expect a return. That limits the amount of it we're all going to get, and so they will want to limit it to the geographic areas they expect to see the most return from.

Email spam, on the other hand, being so ludicrously cheap per message means that they have the incentive to flood as many people randomly with it as possible.

Similarly, the economics of drones means they can be used in ways that helicopters can't and that can lead to very different outcomes and abuses. A big, expensive, risky, machine requiring highly trained pilot and much maintenance vs. a fleet of cheap, comparitively disposable machines with potentially much longer loiter times which can be piloted by pretty much anyone without needing years of training.
 
2013-03-07 02:43:55 PM

Burr: ficklefkrfark: /the (d) and (r) are like two drunks in a bar accusing each other of having a drinking problem.

And then going home and beating their wives who refuse to leave them because if they do, they are afraid that the other drunk will come over and rape them.


Brilliant, both of you.  Partisanship, not drones is the real threat to this country.
 
2013-03-07 02:44:31 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

Think of that one all by your self there chief?


Look it up.  Learn something.
 
2013-03-07 02:47:58 PM
Wake me up when someone straps on a leg-bag and goes to work on the, already well documented (and continuing), killing of innocent citizens through the execution of no-knock warrants at the wrong addresses.

Gov. has been able to send a SLCM up my tailpipe for decades...

/flying my `intruders' at the FAA limit of 400 ft.
 
2013-03-07 02:51:11 PM

Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."


And how come it is you park on a driveway, but you park in a driveway? I mean, hello!
 
2013-03-07 02:52:02 PM

EyeballKid: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

And how come it is you park on a driveway, but you park in a driveway? I mean, hello!


I mean, you drive in a parkway, but...
Oh, fark it, I've been on this shiat too long.
 
2013-03-07 02:55:36 PM

Dr Dreidel: aegean: And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?

Yup, in accordance with the NDAA Congress passed 2 years ago. Congress can still update that, you know - and Obama will be just as bound by the 2013 NDAA as he was by the 2011 version.

// the First was beaten to death in a Free Speech Zone sometime in 2005
// the Fourth and Fifth were taken behind the barn with a .30-30 after Nixon caught them smoking pot together behind the school



and the second got lost in a National Park.
 
2013-03-07 02:59:13 PM

halfof33: Lord_Baull: Fantastic! Using your own logic, you've admitted 9/11 was Bush I's fault.

While not agreeing with your analysis at all, I suspect that you meant Clinton (he was the one who hit Al Qaeda with cruise missiles in August of 1998)



No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.
 
2013-03-07 03:02:55 PM

adamatari: Instead we have everyone falling all over themselves to defend the president's actions - most of them people who would have called it a scandal if it had been done by Bush!



What actions has Obama taken?
 
2013-03-07 03:04:23 PM

olddinosaur: Rand Paul deserves the HERO tag.

He was in opposition to a law which allows the USG to attack unarmed civilians via drone with no trial, no arrest, no nothing, simply on the basis that they MIGHT be up to no good.



Hmmm. What, if anything, could Rand Paul do about that?
 
2013-03-07 03:04:46 PM

Lord_Baull: Because filibustering an appointment nominee for political posturing has an established precedent.


Cato the Younger did it to Julius Caesar.
 
2013-03-07 03:10:28 PM

Parthenogenetic: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Too late.

There's an article in this month's issue of National Geographic about drones.

[kxnet.images.worldnow.com image 265x388]

Here in Dayton, OH there is a thriving drone and sensor industry growing in the pork-laden soil surrounding the Wright-Patterson AFB.

I doubt armed drones will be deployed within the USA.  The drones will provide pervasive surveillance so that cops can shoot, pepper spray, and Taser pre-crime suspects in person, the old fashioned way.

It's for public safety, citizen.  Why are you against safety?


This is different from police helicopters how?  Other than being cheaper and not risking a pilot.  I'm ambivalent about the drone thing but I don't see that argument.  Police copters come over my neighborhood almost every day anyway.  I just don't see how it would be different if it was a drone.

Maybe since they'd be cheaper they could use more of them so the people in the nicer neighborhoods might actually see one now and then?  Yeah it's only scary when it's happening to them, right?  Business as usual around here.  They were okay when it was just that.  Now they're concerned?  Whatever.

I look forward to the inevitable response from someone who misses the point of what I said entirely and thinks I'm saying that armed drone strikes against citizens are A-OK.  Hush now, go polish your guns and have a good cry.  It will all be just fine.
 
2013-03-07 03:24:24 PM
Rand Mother F'n PAUL!!
 
2013-03-07 03:25:36 PM

hitlersbrain: "Where, for that matter, are the mainstream media and the liberal punditocracy that would be calling for impeachment about now if a Republican president had done all this?"

I'm sorry, how is this equivalent to a band of corporately owned puppets (Cheney and Turd Blossom) lying us into attacking a neutral country for no reason?

Rand Paul is a halfwit.


When did we attack Switzerland?
 
2013-03-07 03:25:43 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-07 03:26:07 PM
All by himself= 12 Senators, including a Democrat. Also two democrats brought him extra snacks, thermoses, and other things to help him.
 
2013-03-07 03:27:21 PM

hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x361]


That awkward moment when the party that wanted to ship people to guantanamo and even tried to have an American declared an enemy combatant so he wouldn't get a trial... is now complaining about due process.
 
2013-03-07 03:27:26 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: [pbs.twimg.com image 405x257]

Sen. Graham on the floor.


Ah, "In the US." If he had left that off he would have to put "only a handful or so."
 
2013-03-07 03:28:36 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-03-07 03:34:28 PM

LasersHurt: Dusk-You-n-Me: Front page of HuffPo is not effing around.

My problem with this is that some people seem to legitimately think we didn't have civilian casualties and nothing went wrong BEFORE drones.

I never see people comparing strikes by drone with old-school stikes with a team, or old style munitions.

It's like they think it's all new, as of now.


I just think it's a morally hazardous area that requires careful navigation.  Removing the public interest in war making could go a long way towards giving congress and the president carte blanche to commit US military resources to conflicts anywhere in the world without a peep from our press or our population.

I'm not giving it a value judgment.  I'm just willing to have a discussion about the logistics and rules of engagement wrt Drones.  Can "We the People" make ethical, well informed decisions about the use of our military if "We the People" aren't even going to have to break a sweat to use it?
 
2013-03-07 03:38:45 PM

halfof33: vygramul: So how can we apply a different standard here?

1. You have stipulated that Brennan was operating outside the command structure

2. you have stipulated that the CIA and State department were not apprised of the attacks, and therefore, additional security precautions were not taken in Libya.


I didn't stipulate point 2. I stipulated he ordered them without going up the chain - not that he kept them in the dark about the attacks - something that seems incredibly unlikely as tracking what assets have been used where is not something that doesn't happen.

And given the host of other actions against al Qaeda, it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that a few more attacks would have made all the difference in the world.
 
2013-03-07 03:40:25 PM

firefly212: hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x361]

That awkward moment when the party that wanted to ship people to guantanamo and even tried to have an American declared an enemy combatant so he wouldn't get a trial... is now complaining about due process.


I wonder what his take on police snipers is.
 
2013-03-07 03:40:47 PM

hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x361]


That awkward moment when you realize nobody ever said "Hey Oblahma, will you promise to not kill Americans," and the President replied, "Ah hell no!"
 
2013-03-07 03:43:33 PM

burning_bridge: Parthenogenetic: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Too late.

There's an article in this month's issue of National Geographic about drones.

[kxnet.images.worldnow.com image 265x388]

Here in Dayton, OH there is a thriving drone and sensor industry growing in the pork-laden soil surrounding the Wright-Patterson AFB.

I doubt armed drones will be deployed within the USA.  The drones will provide pervasive surveillance so that cops can shoot, pepper spray, and Taser pre-crime suspects in person, the old fashioned way.

It's for public safety, citizen.  Why are you against safety?

This is different from police helicopters how?  Other than being cheaper and not risking a pilot.  I'm ambivalent about the drone thing but I don't see that argument.  Police copters come over my neighborhood almost every day anyway.  I just don't see how it would be different if it was a drone.

Maybe since they'd be cheaper they could use more of them so the people in the nicer neighborhoods might actually see one now and then?  Yeah it's only scary when it's happening to them, right?  Business as usual around here.  They were okay when it was just that.  Now they're concerned?  Whatever.

I look forward to the inevitable response from someone who misses the point of what I said entirely and thinks I'm saying that armed drone strikes against citizens are A-OK.  Hush now, go polish your guns and have a good cry.  It will all be just fine.


I was under the impression that helicopters came out when they were needed, not just to ... you know... be there.

I could *easily* be mistaken about this, as I've done zero research and am making this up whole cloth, though.  So YMMV.

If helicopters are being used to just maintain an ubiquitous surveillance presence, then I have a problem with that ALSO.  If helicopters are being used during manhunts, rescue operations, etc, that's one thing.  If they are being used as a mobile CCTV camera then that's not cool by me.

In Philly, the 'copters and floodlights came out when police got shot and very rarely otherwise.
 
2013-03-07 03:46:07 PM

Lord_Baull: olddinosaur: Rand Paul deserves the HERO tag.

He was in opposition to a law which allows the USG to attack unarmed civilians via drone with no trial, no arrest, no nothing, simply on the basis that they MIGHT be up to no good.


Hmmm. What, if anything, could Rand Paul do about that?


Given the current political climate in Congress, not much.
 
2013-03-07 03:47:23 PM

sprgrss: Wow, a non-binding resolution that expresses current US and international law. That's really going out on a limb here.


You said he should propose something, that's the proposal he asked the senate to vote on (Harry Reid refused to allow a vote on it).  Also, it seems (though I could be misunderstanding) that you agree there's no need for legislation, and this is already illegal under US and international law.  So all we need is a statement from the President acknowledging that, which is what the resolution calls for.  There's no need for additional legislation.

bikerific: A Sense of the Senate Resolution asking the President to explain himself is not legislation.


ValisIV: That's a non-binding resolution, it's not a bill of law. It says the Senate doesn't think it's right for him to do so, but it does not forbid it. Political grandstanding.


If you want to argue about what the definition of 'legislation' is, you might want to at least define the term before making the claim that this doesn't qualify.

Legislation - noun
1 : the action of legislating; specifically : the exercise of the power and function of making rules (as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization
2 : the enactments of a legislator or a legislative body
3 : a matter of business for or under consideration by a legislative body

While a non-binding resolution may not satisfy definition 1 it certainly falls within both 2 and 3.
 
2013-03-07 03:49:31 PM

BeesNuts: LasersHurt: Dusk-You-n-Me: Front page of HuffPo is not effing around.

My problem with this is that some people seem to legitimately think we didn't have civilian casualties and nothing went wrong BEFORE drones.

I never see people comparing strikes by drone with old-school stikes with a team, or old style munitions.

It's like they think it's all new, as of now.

I just think it's a morally hazardous area that requires careful navigation.  Removing the public interest in war making could go a long way towards giving congress and the president carte blanche to commit US military resources to conflicts anywhere in the world without a peep from our press or our population.

I'm not giving it a value judgment.  I'm just willing to have a discussion about the logistics and rules of engagement wrt Drones.  Can "We the People" make ethical, well informed decisions about the use of our military if "We the People" aren't even going to have to break a sweat to use it?


I think so. You're right that it's hard, and it's something worth discussing, but at the end of the day I don't think it's that much harder to discuss simply because the act of drone piloting is easy. After all, information technology has made it easier to kill, but it's also made it easier for everyone to see and understand who was killed and why. While the act may be "easier," it's maybe under more scrutiny than ever before, which I consider good.
 
2013-03-07 03:50:30 PM
It's pretty funny. Fark commenters are so ridiculously politically blind they don't even realize it.

If Bush Jr were faced with the same question while in office, "Will you kill American citizens on American Soil without trial,"  and he made no clear denial in writing/speech, etc... all these Obama defenders would all be screaming bloody murder, and they would be correct to do so.

Now that their Jesus-figure won't deny the frighteningly obvious, everyone else who suggests an overreach of executive power is somehow crazy for insinuating the obvious.

I expect this level of hypocrisy from politicians and their ilk, not from normal citizens.
 
2013-03-07 03:51:43 PM

Big Man On Campus: I expect this level of hypocrisy from politicians and their ilk, not from normal citizens.


Why not?
 
2013-03-07 03:52:44 PM
Best moments of the drone debate
 
2013-03-07 03:54:32 PM

Phinn: Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

Think of that one all by your self there chief?

Look it up.  Learn something.


Bear in mind I was mocking you for not being half as clever as you seem to consider yourself to be (maybe I was reading too much into a very short post with a very shallow "truism").
 
2013-03-07 03:58:05 PM

Lord_Baull: No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.


Well then, using that reasoning, one might note that Bush put those bases in Saudi Arabia as part of the retaliation against Iraq's attack on Kuwait, and therefore, Saddam was behind 9/11.
 
2013-03-07 04:01:46 PM
Emotionally, I honestly wouldn't have problems with drones taking out a Tim McVeigh domestic terrorist type on US soil.  Logically, I can understand why there are some problems with this, but still the whole issue boils down to a "meh".
 
2013-03-07 04:03:27 PM

Big Man On Campus: It's pretty funny. Fark commenters are so ridiculously politically blind they don't even realize it.

If Bush Jr were faced with the same question while in office, "Will you kill American citizens on American Soil without trial,"  and he made no clear denial in writing/speech, etc... all these Obama defenders would all be screaming bloody murder, and they would be correct to do so.

Now that their Jesus-figure won't deny the frighteningly obvious, everyone else who suggests an overreach of executive power is somehow crazy for insinuating the obvious.

I expect this level of hypocrisy from politicians and their ilk, not from normal citizens.


Yet here you are. LOL indeed.
 
2013-03-07 04:03:37 PM

Lord_Baull: No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.


Actually, Bin Laden's complaint was not that Bush put bases in Saudi Arabia, his complaint was that Clinton didn't take them out.

/we are really getting far afield though.
 
2013-03-07 04:06:05 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

Think of that one all by your self there chief?

Look it up.  Learn something.

Bear in mind I was mocking you for not being half as clever as you seem to consider yourself to be (maybe I was reading too much into a very short post with a very shallow "truism").


You've overwhelmed me with your avalanche of nuance and hypocrisy.
 
2013-03-07 04:08:01 PM

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.

Defend your statement, but don't try to drag me down some unrelated path. You said something dumb - justify it.

Item 1: Barack Obama campaigned against holding suspected terrorists at GTMO to "uphold our values" of due process.

Item 2: Barack Obama orders/allows the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists without due process

You don't see a contradiction?

No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.


When the drone is shooting at you for no apparent reason, then you too will be an enemy combatant.
 
2013-03-07 04:09:07 PM
Nice to see the libs can be just as hypocritical and obtuse as the cons.
 
2013-03-07 04:12:49 PM
Well if he wasn't in lock-step with the Tea Party Retards (r) every other day of the week the media and the public might view this one principled stance more favorably than they did.

Also, he's having his little filibuster party at the wrong hearing.  If he wanted to make a stink during the BUDGET discussion, with the intent to squeeze some language in regarding the use of federal dollars on drone programs, then that would make sense.  But he's not.  He's holding up a cabinet official's confirmation hearing, which is one of the more pathetic things any Senator can use the filibuster power for.

So in summary, if he wants to get respected for his principled views, he shouldn't be in bed with those dogs getting their fleas every other day of the week.
 
2013-03-07 04:14:25 PM

RedVentrue: When the drone is shooting at you for no apparent reason


What makes you think drones are going to fire on Americans, or anyone, for "no apparent reason"?
 
2013-03-07 04:14:45 PM
Everyone has a better chance of being killed in a car accident than getting killed by a terrorist.  Actually, everyone has a better chance of getting hit by lightning than killed by a terrorists.  This just goes to show that terrorism works.

Run Chicken Little!  Run!

From the TSA who will sexually molest you until your tail feathers off if they catch you.
 
2013-03-07 04:16:57 PM
Obama has been talking for over 4 years and nothing good has come from anything he's said
 
2013-03-07 04:20:12 PM

doubled99: Nice to see the libs can be just as hypocritical and obtuse as the cons.


But we're so lucky independents (Is that what you're still calling yourselves? Or, are you "libertarians" now?) such as yourself can stand above the fray and give us the unique point of view of a pompous dickhole.

Let me guess your solution. Does it rhyme with "go gote Gepublican?"
 
2013-03-07 04:22:27 PM
I actually find myself agreeing with Rand Paul on this one.

Goddam it so much.
 
2013-03-07 04:24:07 PM

anfrind: Saiga410: God's Hubris: MugzyBrown: You're also assuming the penalty for being a 'member' of Al Qaeda is instant death.


You're not familiar with how "war" works, are you?

Sweet, can we start firebombing the poor?  War on poverty and all that.

Well, I think we should attack the lower classes, first using bombs and artillery to send them scurrying helplessly from their homes, and then mowing them down with machine guns.  And then, of course, releasing the vultures.

Now, I realize that my views are unpopular, but I have never courted popularity.


Call it urban renewal.
 
2013-03-07 04:26:41 PM

Dr Dreidel: aegean: And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?

Yup, in accordance with the NDAA Congress passed 2 years ago. Congress can still update that, you know - and Obama will be just as bound by the 2013 NDAA as he was by the 2011 version.

// the First was beaten to death in a Free Speech Zone sometime in 2005
// the Fourth and Fifth were taken behind the barn with a .30-30 after Nixon caught them smoking pot together behind the school


Free Speech Zones were brought to you by the DNC in 1988 actually. *sighs* It is pretty sad really.
 
2013-03-07 04:26:56 PM

jshine: qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?

Yea, I don't understand the objection...  Police have been watching people from helicopters for years -- why does taking the pilot out of the aircraft and controlling it via radio-link make it any better or worse?


To be fair, it makes it a heckova lot easier and cheaper to keep watch on more people--without needing a warrant, I might add.  Much easier to abuse than aircraft surveillance.
 
2013-03-07 04:35:43 PM

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: LasersHurt: Dusk-You-n-Me: Front page of HuffPo is not effing around.

My problem with this is that some people seem to legitimately think we didn't have civilian casualties and nothing went wrong BEFORE drones.

I never see people comparing strikes by drone with old-school stikes with a team, or old style munitions.

It's like they think it's all new, as of now.

I just think it's a morally hazardous area that requires careful navigation.  Removing the public interest in war making could go a long way towards giving congress and the president carte blanche to commit US military resources to conflicts anywhere in the world without a peep from our press or our population.

I'm not giving it a value judgment.  I'm just willing to have a discussion about the logistics and rules of engagement wrt Drones.  Can "We the People" make ethical, well informed decisions about the use of our military if "We the People" aren't even going to have to break a sweat to use it?

I think so. You're right that it's hard, and it's something worth discussing, but at the end of the day I don't think it's that much harder to discuss simply because the act of drone piloting is easy. After all, information technology has made it easier to kill, but it's also made it easier for everyone to see and understand who was killed and why. While the act may be "easier," it's maybe under more scrutiny than ever before, which I consider good.


High five.

I hope you're right.  You probably are, at least, right *enough* that we won't encounter any moral hazards which wouldn't just be introduced by other, less exotic technologies.  It's not harder to talk about, it's just harder to steer the conversation away from all the red herrings about GITMO, extrajudicial rendition, weddings, and the like.

It's kind of the same ethical quandary as eliminating the draft.  On the one hand, AWESOME!  Thanks.  On the other, do you think we'll be able to get out of another Vietnam type situation?

Then we see Iraq and Afghanistan and it looks like... yes!  The American people still provide enough political resistance to warfare that it was the central pillar of the 2008 election.  So maybe we aren't lost.

I really hope we can stay on target.
 
2013-03-07 04:39:43 PM

halfof33: Lord_Baull: No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.

Well then, using that reasoning, one might note that Bush put those bases in Saudi Arabia as part of the retaliation against Iraq's attack on Kuwait, and therefore, Saddam was behind 9/11.


You should have seen how Kuwait was dressed though. They were just asking for it, so really they were the ones behind 9/11. And who's their most powerful ally? Dun dun dun...we are! So really - really - we were behind 9/11.

Truthers: not as crazy as you think!
 
2013-03-07 04:44:55 PM

aegean: The Obama administration really is the modern 3rd Reich.

They are doing an unprecedented assault on the Bill of Rights:
   1st Amendment speech
   1st Amendment assembly
   2nd Amendment
   4th Amendment search
   4th Amendment seizure

And now the president can kill anyone he chooses?  This is the creepiest person in American History.


hah. you actually beleive that

adamatari: My question is:

Where the hell is everyone else?

The Obama administration has more or less said that due process is not neccessary and the government can kill US citizens with impunity. This is Obama's "torture memo" - and take a look at our representatives. Literally ONE has been willing to stand up, and only a small handful are willing to support him.

Where is everyone? Why is almost no-one willing to call an unconstitutional power grab what it is? Where are the Democrats to pull the president from their party back in line?

Instead we have everyone falling all over themselves to defend the president's actions - most of them people who would have called it a scandal if it had been done by Bush!


gee I never read that memo. the one where it said that he could kill anyone,anywhere at any time without any reason.  you got the actual text of that?  I was of the understanding that the target had to be actively engaged in a terrorist act. Where is the memo contradiciting that and allowing them to kill anyone at any time?
 
2013-03-07 04:44:59 PM

cbathrob: I actually find myself agreeing with Rand Paul on this one.

Goddam it so much.


I know. It's crazy pills time.
 
2013-03-07 04:45:32 PM
The whole drone strike thing overseas seams a bit like Catch-22 to me. We need to stop this War on Terror BS, stop drone strikes unless we are targeting specific people with good evidence of their activities (instead of "signature strikes" where we strike targets based in behavior, ie 5 people gathering at night in northern Yemen), and get out of Afghanistan.

A: "We blew up some militants"

B: "How can we be sure no innocent civilians were hurt?"

A: "Because we defined every person killed in the blast to be a militant"
 
2013-03-07 04:47:20 PM

halfof33: Lord_Baull: No, Bush I placed US bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, something OBL specifically cited as reasons to attack the US. One might easily say it was in retaliation for Bush I's actions.

Well then, using that reasoning, one might note that Bush put those bases in Saudi Arabia as part of the retaliation against Iraq's attack on Kuwait, and therefore, Saddam was behind 9/11.



Only if you believe OBL was retaliating against Saddam by blowing up the WTC. Which I wouldn't put past you.
 
2013-03-07 04:49:54 PM

hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x416]


I have news for you, if you think this is a picture of a liberal, you have no farking idea what that word means.

This message brought to you by sanity.
 
2013-03-07 04:53:26 PM

cbathrob: jshine: qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?

Yea, I don't understand the objection...  Police have been watching people from helicopters for years -- why does taking the pilot out of the aircraft and controlling it via radio-link make it any better or worse?

To be fair, it makes it a heckova lot easier and cheaper to keep watch on more people--without needing a warrant, I might add.  Much easier to abuse than aircraft surveillance.


They are going to keep getting cheaper, and smaller, and more lethal. Imagine if Tricky Dick had a million information-gathering, thumb sized, silent drones at his disposal. Oh, the fun he would have had.

Cheney would have conquered the world.
 
2013-03-07 04:55:35 PM

LasersHurt: RedVentrue: When the drone is shooting at you for no apparent reason

What makes you think drones are going to fire on Americans, or anyone, for "no apparent reason"?


What makes you think they're not. They don't vote themeselves a power without intending to use it.
 
2013-03-07 04:56:41 PM

RedVentrue: LasersHurt: RedVentrue: When the drone is shooting at you for no apparent reason

What makes you think drones are going to fire on Americans, or anyone, for "no apparent reason"?

What makes you think they're not. They don't vote themeselves a power without intending to use it.


Not sure if serious...
 
2013-03-07 04:57:53 PM

Kahabut: hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x416]

I have news for you, if you think this is a picture of a liberal, you have no farking idea what that word means.

This message brought to you by sanity.



this answers your question.
 
2013-03-07 04:58:55 PM

RedVentrue: LasersHurt: RedVentrue: When the drone is shooting at you for no apparent reason

What makes you think drones are going to fire on Americans, or anyone, for "no apparent reason"?

What makes you think they're not. They don't vote themeselves a power without intending to use it.



What country do you think this is?
 
2013-03-07 04:59:25 PM

Evil High Priest: cbathrob: jshine: qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?

Yea, I don't understand the objection...  Police have been watching people from helicopters for years -- why does taking the pilot out of the aircraft and controlling it via radio-link make it any better or worse?

To be fair, it makes it a heckova lot easier and cheaper to keep watch on more people--without needing a warrant, I might add.  Much easier to abuse than aircraft surveillance.

They are going to keep getting cheaper, and smaller, and more lethal. Imagine if Tricky Dick had a million information-gathering, thumb sized, silent drones at his disposal. Oh, the fun he would have had.

Cheney would have conquered the world.


Then it's incumbent upon the Congress to clearly and unambiguously lay out the terms under which said drones can be used, and enforce that through their power of impeachment. If they write a law governing their use that basically says "the executive can do whatever he wants", like they did with the AUMF, then yeah, it'll be a problem.
 
2013-03-07 04:59:51 PM

Phinn: Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

Think of that one all by your self there chief?

Look it up.  Learn something.

Bear in mind I was mocking you for not being half as clever as you seem to consider yourself to be (maybe I was reading too much into a very short post with a very shallow "truism").

You've overwhelmed me with your avalanche of nuance and hypocrisy.


Would it also overwhelm you to consider that government is the organization formed when individuals agree not to use violence against each other, and thus when an individual in a civilized state does use violence against another this is a huge violation of the agreement between individuals? Your quote on its face is pretty dur-dur obvious, but when you examine it far more closely you'll find that it's total stupid outside of a caste system, a monarchy, any other kind of autocracy. In democractic republics the constituents truly get the government they deserve.
 
2013-03-07 05:05:05 PM

meat0918: I wonder if the development of the longbow had similar detractors?

Wait, no I don't, because military technology has long revolved around how to kill the other guy while making sure/hoping your guys don't die in the process.

Drones are just the latest development in that long running technological battle.


4.bp.blogspot.com

WARRIOR!!!! HOOOOAH!!!!
 
2013-03-07 05:09:11 PM
"A neighbor tells you he won't pay you the two goats he owes you, you tell the Americans he is a Taliban cadre; that's the Helmand Province way."
 
2013-03-07 05:15:15 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: Crotchrocket Slim: Phinn: The state calls its own violence "law," but that of the individual "crime."

Think of that one all by your self there chief?

Look it up.  Learn something.

Bear in mind I was mocking you for not being half as clever as you seem to consider yourself to be (maybe I was reading too much into a very short post with a very shallow "truism").

You've overwhelmed me with your avalanche of nuance and hypocrisy.

Would it also overwhelm you to consider that government is the organization formed when individuals agree not to use violence against each other, and thus when an individual in a civilized state does use violence against another this is a huge violation of the agreement between individuals? Your quote on its face is pretty dur-dur obvious, but when you examine it far more closely you'll find that it's total stupid outside of a caste system, a monarchy, any other kind of autocracy. In democractic republics the constituents truly get the government they deserve.


Do you honestly expect a Fark Independent(tm) to understand something as nuanced as the social contract, when they can't understand basic cause and effect?
 
2013-03-07 05:18:12 PM
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...
 
2013-03-07 05:20:27 PM

fknra: http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...


That has the force of law and applies to all Presidents, both present and future? No? Then he didn't really solve the problem he's identified, has he?
 
2013-03-07 05:30:25 PM

fknra: http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...


And people make fun of the UN with their harshly worded letters.
 
2013-03-07 05:38:40 PM

MugzyBrown: jshine: Its a matter of circumstance: if person A is in the process of pulling a gun to shoot person B, then a cop is justified in shooting A to prevent the murder. That has been the law for -- well -- forever, as far as I'm aware (though IANAL).

Obviously its preferable to arrest A and send him/her to trial, but if there's an imminent threat to the life of a cop or another person, then police have the power to use deadly force to deal with that threat if necessary.

How is your scenario of imminent threat to the life of a cop comparable to two guys in a car in Yemen?



1) TFA relates to drone use within the US; Yemen is completely unrelated to anything under discussion.

2) A cop may use deadly force to protect any life (or lives), not just his own (if you read my scenario more carefully, party "B" is not necessarily the police officer; he/she could be anyone).
 
2013-03-07 05:50:07 PM
The local news said this corksucker spoke for 6 hours.... According to CNN one hour of congress' time costs taxpayers $600,000. Way to waste $3.6 million just to make a point. Jackass.
 
2013-03-07 05:52:42 PM

qorkfiend: fknra: http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/WhiteHouseLetter.pdf

i'll just leave this here for the people who were whining about him not accomplishing anything...

That has the force of law and applies to all Presidents, both present and future? No? Then he didn't really solve the problem he's identified, has he?


No, but he asked a question and got an answer. Which was his stated intention right? He wasn't trying to get another law passed, he was demanding an answer that they initially refused to give.

(am I mistaken?)
 
2013-03-07 06:02:44 PM
all of this for a damned flag
 
2013-03-07 06:14:54 PM

MugzyBrown: It's a sad state of affairs when the left would defend a program which involves extra-judiciary execution of anybody, yet alone american citizens.

Obama who campaigned originally on the plan to close GTMO and provide real trials to captured enemies, now endorses a policy of simply killing people without oversight of any kind.


Oversight?

Kinda like warrantless wire taps?
 
2013-03-07 07:13:28 PM

halfof33: The Benghazi terrorist attack, during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.

As Deputy National Security Brennan was also involved in coordinating the obviously false story that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest, even though the FBI, State Department AND CIA had evidence directly contradicting it.

\m/


The only thing that is false is everything you just said.
 
2013-03-07 07:28:10 PM
Read the headline and automatically thought they were talking about RuPaul.  Been watching too much Drag Race lately, I suppose.  But, I admit, he'd be fabulous at the job.  Oh, and far more interesting than Rand Paul.  Now why I didn't think of Ron Paul on the first pass is quite puzzling....

\blather
 
2013-03-07 08:14:03 PM

Lord_Baull: RedVentrue: LasersHurt: RedVentrue: When the drone is shooting at you for no apparent reason

What makes you think drones are going to fire on Americans, or anyone, for "no apparent reason"?

What makes you think they're not. They don't vote themeselves a power without intending to use it.


What country do you think this is?


What country are we turning into? The Constitution is as good as dead, and civil liberties are being withdrawn daily.
 
2013-03-07 09:11:48 PM

hasty ambush: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x416]


What fresh fabricated hell are you going on about, and what does it have to do with RAND PAUL?

... or perhaps you're just firing off strawman images and ThePeoplesCube cartoons at random.

/Macro Images: Another thing right-wingers do not know how to do
 
2013-03-07 09:19:26 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-07 11:08:37 PM
But I do think it's a horrible idea and unconstitutional for Article III judges to oversee military decisions. I can imagine during another Sept. 11, as Attorney General Eric Holder said, we might have to use a drone to prevent or halt an attack. But the excessive reliance on drones is troublesome from a policy standpoint, and I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual attack, we will not use drones on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens."

Where the hell were these people on September 20, 2001, when I was getting called a traitorous liberal?  That speech shook me to my core.  I realized that, oh dear God, the President just got handed an incredible amount of power, and these people who treat politics like it's a team sport think it's just wonderful that the President can order "targeted killings" of U.S. citizens without a trial, because 9/11 changed everything.  With the people I knew, I told them they'd change their tune as soon as a Democrat was in the White House.  And, shockingly, I was right.
 
2013-03-07 11:41:55 PM
i just re-read the classic fear and loathing on the campaign trail 1972.

now i try to imagine hunter thompson, nat hentoff, the new york times, and every single college student
reacting to richard nixon's use of drones for surveillance, infra red and otherwise, killing american citizens
on foreign soil, and taking two days of dancing around before he could agree not to use them to kill americans on american soil.except it's not nixon, it's a progressive democrat!
 besides the drone issue obama is finishing a huge data center in utah that will house combined records of every citizen including health, criminal, financial, etc etc.
and of course the IRS will administer and oversee obamacare.  i can imagine the uproar,  the outcry if all this took place under nixon. but today, under obama, that faction of the left is silent and approving.
only the ACLU has thrown its full weight against these issues of personal privacy, liberty, and the threat of full government control and oversight of every aspect of our lives.

in this thread i've read that drones flying overhead is no different than police helicopters. i think you should do a little reading. for one thing, why approve of police helicopters unless there is a specific problem? i don't want them just flying around, spying with cameras and infra red. drones however, are getting very small and can invade privacy in many different ways. the potential for abuse both now and in the future is huge.

for the life of me i can't understand how conservatives are on the correct side of this issue IMO while libs, who in past decades would be against this don't seem to care at all.
 
2013-03-07 11:53:26 PM

frymeupasteak: i just re-read the classic fear and loathing on the campaign trail 1972.

now i try to imagine hunter thompson, nat hentoff, the new york times, and every single college student
reacting to richard nixon's use of drones for surveillance, infra red and otherwise, killing american citizens
on foreign soil, and taking two days of dancing around before he could agree not to use them to kill americans on american soil.except it's not nixon, it's a progressive democrat!
 besides the drone issue obama is finishing a huge data center in utah that will house combined records of every citizen including health, criminal, financial, etc etc.
and of course the IRS will administer and oversee obamacare.  i can imagine the uproar,  the outcry if all this took place under nixon. but today, under obama, that faction of the left is silent and approving.
only the ACLU has thrown its full weight against these issues of personal privacy, liberty, and the threat of full government control and oversight of every aspect of our lives.

in this thread i've read that drones flying overhead is no different than police helicopters. i think you should do a little reading. for one thing, why approve of police helicopters unless there is a specific problem? i don't want them just flying around, spying with cameras and infra red. drones however, are getting very small and can invade privacy in many different ways. the potential for abuse both now and in the future is huge.

for the life of me i can't understand how conservatives are on the correct side of this issue IMO while libs, who in past decades would be against this don't seem to care at all.


see that's what you are steadfastly ignorant about: context: If we thought conservatives gave two tugs of a dead dogs cock about killing anyone, we might have a conversation.

What do we have? Conservatives trying to ignite loyalty in the younger groups through faux concern.. so they can get back in the white house and start killin' 'em again.

We're not fooled.
 
2013-03-08 12:45:32 AM
Obama's policy on drones is deeply flawed.  However, Paul is still a dipshiat.
 
2013-03-08 01:37:36 AM

Bucky Katt: Obama's policy on drones is deeply flawed.  However, Paul is still a dipshiat.


I think we're done here.
 
2013-03-08 02:24:28 AM
Rand...
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-08 02:27:13 AM

dbrunker: [i46.tinypic.com image 492x372]


I think your first problem is that you think CNN is "liberal."
 
2013-03-08 09:02:56 AM
here is an interesting point.
had to go quite a bit into these comments before we get away from not being able to distinguish the message from the messenger and the general stupid kneejerk red/blue wharrrgarrble before there was any substantive discourse on the actual subject.

which, was part of what the article was pointing out... the amount of general stupid kneejerk red/blue wharrgarrble apparent in mainstream media.

of course its truth and does not pick sides... so my statement will be ignored, hated, made fun of and/or twisted to be taken completely out of context...
 
2013-03-08 10:38:48 AM
Nothing about the photo in the article? Really?

lh3.googleusercontent.com

I had to do this, the next morning, after putting whole coffee beans in my machine without water?
Y'all suck.
 
2013-03-08 11:23:18 AM

belhade: Y'all suck.


Hey man, I'm not the one who forgot to grind his coffee beans before putting 'em in the hopper.
 
2013-03-08 11:34:22 AM

BeesNuts: belhade: Y'all suck.

Hey man, I'm not the one who forgot to grind his coffee beans before putting 'em in the hopper.


Look, if I was coherent enough to make coffee in the morning, I wouldn't *need* it!
 
2013-03-08 12:20:45 PM

belhade: BeesNuts: belhade: Y'all suck.

Hey man, I'm not the one who forgot to grind his coffee beans before putting 'em in the hopper.

Look, if I was coherent enough to make coffee in the morning, I wouldn't *need* it!


images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Cuisinart-DGB-900BC-Automatic-Coffeemaker-Stai nl ess/dp/B000T9XPHC
 
2013-03-08 03:31:20 PM

belhade: BeesNuts: belhade: Y'all suck.

Hey man, I'm not the one who forgot to grind his coffee beans before putting 'em in the hopper.

Look, if I was coherent enough to make coffee in the morning, I wouldn't *need* it!


This needs to be codified into some kind of mathematical paradox.
 
2013-03-08 06:18:33 PM

dbrunker: [i46.tinypic.com image 492x372]


...because they're IMAGINARY.

Jesus Christ, I saw the headlines and thought, 'oh good, finally something we can agree on' but no. He's ranting about shiat that's never happened, nobody has ever tried to do, and the Administration said they were agasint. Stawmen all the way down. What a ridiculous, useless excuse for a Congressmen.
 
Displayed 337 of 337 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report