Rand Paul won't Shut Up

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

But the drone program is a major part of that. Conservatives in America are shrieking about "spending and government waste" and few of them mention the trillions of dollars we've poured into the military and defense that doesn't need to be spent. Why do we still have enough nukes to literally blow up the entire world about 10 times? Is that even necessary? Is there even a threat to us that we'd NEED stuff like that?

I agree with you, it is asinine.

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

josevolution wrote:

But how could they go and arrest these individuals with out putting american troops in harms way it's almost impossible no ?

how do they arrest violent drug criminals? they put cops in harms way

it is the nature of the job.

If someone is killed in the process of arrest that is COMPLETELY different than sending a missile from on high when they were leaving the piggly wiggly

Arresting someone in Miami isn't quite as dangerous as arresting someone in enemy controlled territory of country that doesn't have a functional government.

In fact, it's not even comparable.

I am not comparing them, I am merely showing that people are put in harms way often when it comes to trying to affect an arrest. We can do it. We have to do it. The constitution protects us for a reason, when exceptions to things start, they don't stop.
If we know he is there, why bomb the fucker, why not take them all and use the intelligence gained for a positive purpose. If he was involved in planning an attack I would imagine there would be something useful.
I am not pretending it would be easy, but certainly if we want to be seen as the beacon of freedom in the world, we have to act like we are the beacon of freedom in the world and that doesn't include killing people who should be arrested.
That isn't everyone of course, in a theater of war different rules apply, last I heard we weren't at war with Yemen or Pakistan. What we are talking about is the use of drones to kill non-combatants, people who aren't in the act of attacking anyone. The war on terror is a horrible phrase, because it makes a war zone of every single inch of space on the earth, and I don't agree with that philosophy.

Jason P

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am not comparing them, I am merely showing that people are put in harms way often when it comes to trying to affect an arrest. We can do it. We have to do it. The constitution protects us for a reason, when exceptions to things start, they don't stop.
If we know he is there, why bomb the fucker, why not take them all and use the intelligence gained for a positive purpose. If he was involved in planning an attack I would imagine there would be something useful.
I am not pretending it would be easy, but certainly if we want to be seen as the beacon of freedom in the world, we have to act like we are the beacon of freedom in the world and that doesn't include killing people who should be arrested.
That isn't everyone of course, in a theater of war different rules apply, last I heard we weren't at war with Yemen or Pakistan. What we are talking about is the use of drones to kill non-combatants, people who aren't in the act of attacking anyone. The war on terror is a horrible phrase, because it makes a war zone of every single inch of space on the earth, and I don't agree with that philosophy.

The enemy we are fighting is not represented by a nation.

Most U.S. officers are not engaging in combat. Yet they are directing forces to attack targets. Would you consider them to be non-combatants?

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I am not comparing them, I am merely showing that people are put in harms way often when it comes to trying to affect an arrest. We can do it. We have to do it. The constitution protects us for a reason, when exceptions to things start, they don't stop.
If we know he is there, why bomb the fucker, why not take them all and use the intelligence gained for a positive purpose. If he was involved in planning an attack I would imagine there would be something useful.
I am not pretending it would be easy, but certainly if we want to be seen as the beacon of freedom in the world, we have to act like we are the beacon of freedom in the world and that doesn't include killing people who should be arrested.
That isn't everyone of course, in a theater of war different rules apply, last I heard we weren't at war with Yemen or Pakistan. What we are talking about is the use of drones to kill non-combatants, people who aren't in the act of attacking anyone. The war on terror is a horrible phrase, because it makes a war zone of every single inch of space on the earth, and I don't agree with that philosophy.

The enemy we are fighting is not represented by a nation.

Most U.S. officers are not engaging in combat. Yet they are directing forces to attack targets. Would you consider them to be non-combatants?

The officers would be doing so from a us military installation, which would make them combatants.
That is an interesting question though, I have to say it took me a while to figure it out.
We declared war on an idea, and in that way we need to be better than that idea. Killing people in the middle of cities, killing innocents who happen to be standing next to a "terrorist", that shit ain't right. Once in a while you hit a fucking wedding. If you want to continue to fight the war, be prepared to pay the cost to fight it the right way.

The enemy we are fighting is whoever the gov't decides it is, where ever they decide a war zone is, and that is the problem. We are supposed to believe them when they say someone is a member of some terrorist organization, but yet an American, no matter how shitty, is killed overseas in a non combat area and they don't have to even check with a judge or show their evidence to a sealed grand jury or indict him. That shit ain't right.

This is a never ending war, we will never say "there, we got them all", so if we are going to perpetually fight it, than we need to fight it the right way. Drone strikes might minimize American casualties, but everything has a cost, and I am afraid the cost of the war on terror and drone programs might be the soul of our Country and everything that made it great.

Jason P

mikepegg44 wrote:

The officers would be doing so from a us military installation, which would make them combatants.
That is an interesting question though, I have to say it took me a while to figure it out.
We declared war on an idea, and in that way we need to be better than that idea. Killing people in the middle of cities, killing innocents who happen to be standing next to a "terrorist", that shit ain't right. Once in a while you hit a fucking wedding. If you want to continue to fight the war, be prepared to pay the cost to fight it the right way.

The enemy we are fighting is whoever the gov't decides it is, where ever they decide a war zone is, and that is the problem. We are supposed to believe them when they say someone is a member of some terrorist organization, but yet an American, no matter how shitty, is killed overseas in a non combat area and they don't have to even check with a judge or show their evidence to a sealed grand jury or indict him. That shit ain't right.

This is a never ending war, we will never say "there, we got them all", so if we are going to perpetually fight it, than we need to fight it the right way. Drone strikes might minimize American casualties, but everything has a cost, and I am afraid the cost of the war on terror and drone programs might be the soul of our Country and everything that made it great.

I see where you are coming from, but this is more of a slippery slope perspective as far as I see it. Al-Aulaqi was an associate of Al-qeada. This isn't just some possible supposed terrorist organization. These are the guys that took down the twin towers, blew up the pentagon, and killed a bunch of people in a field ... With commercial airliners.

It is cut and dry to me that this guy was a legitimate enemy of the United States of America.

Diplomatic immunity revoked, as the great Murtaugh once said.

Jason P

I hate to make Nazi comparisons ... But to make my comparison on non-combatants .... Joseph Goebbels

A main example of a non-combatant ...

Where does Joe rank on the all time scale of Nazi scumbags???

An argument could be made for #1

Bentleyspop

Jason P wrote:

I hate to make Nazi comparisons ... But to make my comparison on non-combatants .... Joseph Goebbels

A main example of a non-combatant ...

Where does Joe rank on the all time scale of Nazi scumbags???

An argument could be made for #1

As someone who lost direct family members in the Holocaust I can safely say that Goebbels was #2
just behind you know who and just ahead of Goering

Jason P

Bentleyspop wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I hate to make Nazi comparisons ... But to make my comparison on non-combatants .... Joseph Goebbels

A main example of a non-combatant ...

Where does Joe rank on the all time scale of Nazi scumbags???

An argument could be made for #1

As someone who lost direct family members in the Holocaust I can safely say that Goebbels was #2
just behind you know who and just ahead of Goering

Sorry for your loss. Yeah, him hitting #1 is not justifiable.

But as I've read, it looked like he was trying to make a power play to become the biggest a-hole in the history of mankind at the end of the war.

Classic megalomaniac.

Last-12-Exit

I won't vote for Sen Paul when he runs for president. I will however commend him for using one of the oldest and best ways to get an answer to a VALID question. Filibustering serves a purpose in a checks and balance system.

Yes the drone attack was not on American soil. But, what would stop Obama or any other future president from ordering an attack in America without a written answer?

Edit: was it a publicity stunt? Of course. Anytime a politician makes a public political stand it is a publicity stunt. This one served a purpose though.

hedonist

Don't forget the other joltin' Joe (Mengele, that is - and apologies for my poor-taste pun; been a long week).

Props to you guys discussing this civilly.

JimmyV

mikepegg44 wrote:

josevolution wrote:

But how could they go and arrest these individuals with out putting american troops in harms way it's almost impossible no ?

how do they arrest violent drug criminals? they put cops in harms way

it is the nature of the job.

If someone is killed in the process of arrest that is COMPLETELY different than sending a missile from on high when they were leaving the piggly wiggly

Killing an al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan is also completely different than sending a missile from on high when they are leaving the piggly wiggly. This is where the argument breaks down for me. I don't believe even the most hawkish President would start assassinating average Americans in this way. It has never happened. We have had hawkish presidents before and none of them would have needed drones to carry out assassinations if they were so inclined. I do think this argument is fearmongering.

callen

unsung wrote:

Jesus.

It isn't about blocking a vote on an Obama nominee. That argument is so easily dismissed because Sen Paul voted to confirm Hagel and Kerry.

It's about getting an answer about drone strikes from a pro drone, pro torture nominee.

Even hardcore liberals like Van Jones were tweeting support for Rand Paul.

I #StandwithRand

Some of the tea is very good....now if only they'd drop the social crap.