Is Rand Paul Still Talking?

I agree with KG. I also agree that Paul is a total nut-job asshole, but he is exercising his rights and for that I applaud him.

Minarchist wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

C'mon, Cheeze, this little stunt of yours is getting old. You're a smart person. You know exactly what this is about and you're just bringing up semantic points to try and slip somebody up in a legal wording mistake. It's a sh*t tactic and you know it. Stop it.

No, I did not know exactly what this is about. And starting off your post acting like a total asshole doesn't help, but I think I get what it's about for you now.

You asked me for a source on a paraphrase of Rand Paul that was plastered on nearly every news outlet in the country. Why would you do that if not to try and lay traps? This is a trend with you and I'm not playing that game.

Why would I do that? Because maybe there's something the Obama administration said that I'm unaware of. What I knew about what they said was what I quoted. But maybe there was something else they said that I had not seen that would make me facepalm and then agree with you.

See, that's what mature people do. Even when they've had a conversation and they think they know everything about the issue, they're open to the idea that the people who disagree with them have something new to offer when those people bring up the issue again. I thought maybe you had some bunch of smoking gun weasel words from Obama that I was unaware of and would change my mind.

You didn't.

So can you understand why I think you people are total assholes when you start in with this "semantics and traps!" bullsh*t? You can't figure out how it's not a trap. Well, that's your problem, because you've got some double secret probationary premise you're not telling us, and then you blame me for not being able to read your mind. Here's part of Paul's filibuster:

If there’s a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force. You don’t get due process if you’re involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government. You don’t get due process if you’re overseas in a battle shooting at our soldiers. But that’s not what we’re talking about. The Wall Street Journal reported and said that the bulk of the drone attacks are signature attacks. They don’t even know the name of the person. A line or a caravan is going from a place where we think there are bad people to a place where we think they might commit harm and we kill the caravan, not the person. Is that the standard that we will now use in America? Will we use a standard for killing Americans to be that we thought – killing Americans to be that we thought you were bad, we thought you were coming from a meeting of bad people and you were in a line of traffic and so, therefore, you were fine for the killing? That is the standard we’re using overseas. Is that the standard we’re going to use here?

I will speak today until the President responds and says no, we won’t kill Americans in cafes; no, we won’t kill you at home in your bed at night; no, we won’t drop bombs on restaurants. Is that so hard? It’s amazing that the President will not respond. I’ve been asking this question for a month. It’s like pulling teeth to get the President to respond to anything. And I get no answer.

Here's part of the Holder letter that prompted the filibuster.

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Sounds to me like they answered his question. "If there’s a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force. You don’t get due process if you’re involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government" sounds like "For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001" doesn't it?

But hey, like I said: you distrust them to the point where even that's not good enough for you. Okay, but then SAY THAT! Don't act like a spoiled child and start acting the way you did, because it sure does look like the answer Paul was demanding was in the actual letter that provoked the filibuster in the first place. If even that's not enough of an answer for you, then okay, but when someone asks you a question like I did, then tell them it's not enough of an answer for you before going into all that bullsh*t you wrote.

Here's Paul's burden of proof:

"When I asked the President, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, “no.” The President’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that."

Now remember what Paul says later: "If there’s a gentleman or a woman with a grenade launcher attacking our buildings or our Capitol, we use lethal force. You don’t get due process if you’re involved with actively attacking us, our soldiers or our government."

See the problem with Paul's logic? What if the gentleman or woman is an American citizen? The reason he didn't get his resounding and unequivocal "no" is because even Rand Paul knows that answer is wrong.

Cheeze, you really have your panties up in a bunch when you come in here calling everyone a bunch of assholes. Not really necessary, when some of us agree with you.

With regards to "semantics and traps" - that is a pretty common criticism levied against you, and the only thing in common with all the instances and people that make the criticism is you.

Mature people are also introspective and reflect on criticism.

Cheeze.. What you write makes sense to me. Holder answered the question with specific examples on why we wouldn't want to say never kill an American on American soil.

As Robear pointed out. Police get to do that all the time. Why not the Feds in extraordinary circumstances?

Minarchist is not an asshole, we had a magical moment smoking our pipes last Fall. He is a gentleman of the highest order, who still owes me a beer.

The key thing is that there is a difference between someone training a weapon on someone, presenting an imminent danger, and someone involved in an organization that might be making conspiratoral plans. In the first case, lethal force can be used to protect innocents. In the second case, an arrest and trial are warranted, but not lethal force. Holder (and the Administration) does not seem to make a distinction between the two.

People have a reading problem. Where is there no distinction? I don't see it.

The first paragraph is about using the capabilities of policing agents. The second is about an imminent attack.

The distinction is separated into two paragraphs.

There is another side that also has not been represented. It would be very dangerous for the President, the FBI, the CIA, a General in the Pentagon to make available information and details regarding preparedness or procedure in dealing with such threats on US soil.

Now then I pose this question, and it is not a hypothetical.

Joseph Stack flew his plane into an IRS building, it ended in only 2 fatalities (an office manager and Stack himself), fortunately. Is there anything illegal that if the Pentagon, FBI, ATF were tipped off about Stack's intentions, and his route to the IRS Building to shoot him down with a drone if the opportunity presented itself; if he refused to land of his own volition?

SallyNasty wrote:

Cheeze, you really have your panties up in a bunch when you come in here calling everyone a bunch of assholes. Not really necessary, when some of us agree with you.

With regards to "semantics and traps" - that is a pretty common criticism levied against you, and the only thing in common with all the instances and people that make the criticism is you.

Mature people are also introspective and reflect on criticism.

I'll PM you.

Old Man McCain weighs in:
McCain Slams Rand Paul’s ‘Ridiculous’ Filibuster

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Thursday went after Sen. Rand Paul's talking filibuster of CIA director nominee John Brennan, calling the Kentucky Republican's claim that the U.S. could have hypothetically conducted a drone strike on Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War "ridiculous."

What I can't figure out is the obsession with drones: we use drones because we don't want another Black Hawk Down situation. Is the government really going to start dropping bombs from drones on a cafe or your bedroom if they want to kill you while you're here in America? If you believe the administration wanted to kill American citizens here in America, aren't there a whole lot of much easier and more deniable ways to get that done?

Because JUDGMENT DAY! That's why! And John Connor does not look up to the task anymore.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Edward_Furlong_image_2.JPG/220px-Edward_Furlong_image_2.JPG)

So the filibuster is an analog DoS attack?

CheezePavilion wrote:

So the filibuster is an analog DoS attack?

Surprise - quote of the day.

Cheeze, it is kinda poor form to send people PMs and lock your account so that you don't accept them. I will respond to you here.

I will just say that I feel that you definitely deserve your reputation, and that I don't think you argue in good faith and that you play games with other posters. I think you are better than most debaters and use that to bully and posters and to derail threads. On a personal note, I agree with a lot of what you say and think you have an interesting perspective - but I don't like the way you debate. I think you are a bully and I cannot abide bullies.

The most cherished belief of GWJ is, in my eyes, that we are all expected to treat each other as though we were in the same room with one another, and talking from accross the table - looking each other in the eyes. I don't feel like you do that. I feel that you often play devil's advocate and argue positions you don't necessarily hold, just to stir things up. I think you often know exactly what people mean, but require MBA citations to intimidate and silence other posters. To me, P&C is a conversation (often heated), but not a debate. Perhaps I am wrong, and if so - I apologize.

I have asked you previously to not PM me and I reiterate here.

goman wrote:

People have a reading problem. Where is there no distinction? I don't see it.

The first paragraph is about using the capabilities of policing agents. The second is about an imminent attack.

The distinction is separated into two paragraphs.

The Administration's definition of imminent attack is very sketchy and vague. If they are going to use imminent attack as a justification for avoiding due process then it needs to be clearly spelled out.

SallyNasty wrote:

I have asked you previously to not PM me and I reiterate here.

And I have told you previously that I won't if you won't junior moderate on me in the middle of a thread. But I guess respect is a one-way street.

"No, Mr. Paul, whose principal address is at north 38 degrees, 2 minutes, 15.16 second latitude and west 84 degrees, 30 minutes, 56.74 seconds longitude, we don't want to absolutely say we won't kill U.S. citizens with drone strikes."

CheezePavilion wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I have asked you previously to not PM me and I reiterate here.

And I have told you previously that I won't if you won't junior moderate on me in the middle of a thread. But I guess respect is a one-way street.

Much like PMs from Cheeze

Tanglebones wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I have asked you previously to not PM me and I reiterate here.

And I have told you previously that I won't if you won't junior moderate on me in the middle of a thread. But I guess respect is a one-way street.

Much like PMs from Cheeze

It was nice to have the quote of the day, even if it only lasted a half-hour ; D

Sorry to interrupt the sniping, but:
Obama Administration Responds To Rand Paul On Drones

The U.S. government cannot target an American citizen who is not engaged in combat on American soil, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday during his daily press briefing.
Tanglebones wrote:

Sorry to interrupt the sniping, but:
Obama Administration Responds To Rand Paul On Drones

The U.S. government cannot target an American citizen who is not engaged in combat on American soil, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday during his daily press briefing.

If Holder's letter had actually said that, then Rand wouldn't have to have held his sh*t for so long.

Edit - anyone else think of Robotech everytime they see the name Rand?

Nevin73 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Sorry to interrupt the sniping, but:
Obama Administration Responds To Rand Paul On Drones

The U.S. government cannot target an American citizen who is not engaged in combat on American soil, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday during his daily press briefing.

If Holder's letter had actually said that, then Rand wouldn't have to have held his sh*t for so long.

Edit - anyone else think of Robotech everytime they see the name Rand?

I think it was a new letter from Holder that this was in reference to, not the original one.

Eric Holder wrote:

Dear Senator Paul:
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does thePresident have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged incombat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.

My tolerance for drama is pretty low these days. Locking this thread and politely warning participants that next time I see people attacking posters and/or their intentions rather than their arguments, we'll have a problem.