Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Rand Paul Filibusters Brennan Nomination

Politics 2013 Rand Paul Filibuster Drone Policy Senate

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#41 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 07 March 2013 - 09:12 PM

Thank you Bobby for remembering my position on this in 2006.  This all matters to me.  It matters a lot.  At the time, partisan Republicans didn't think Bush would ever use the power.  They trusted Jr.  Now, partisan Democrats don't see the need for worry because they trust Obama.  I can see this subjectively and even note that I find myself believing in politicians I trust more than those I don't.  I understand that.

I worry about the President that comes along that we can't trust with this much power.  After all, it's really only an elected official.  It's not like candidates pass some sort of smell test.  Some kind of test for competence.  In fact, we have just the opposite.  Good spin gets you elected. Bad spin doesn't.  Who can tell if any of it can be trusted.  So, this kind of power in the wrong hands scares the shit out of me.  It's just to easy to get used to using this kind of power.  And the more a President claims to have the power [even if he never uses it] the more people will begin to believe they do have the power.

I read Rachel Maddow's Book "Drift", which is an interesting book [and issue] to discuss in this context.  How far removed from the consequences of war are we?  I mean for our soldiers.  How far?   We begin to remove all the danger and what is there to stop a war mentality?  War apparently is dangerous to all living things living outside the United States [and its allies]. We don't feel the loss of our young people the way we once did.  We don't question war the way we once did.  We certainly don't question the war economy, and we should.  Every new innovation in the waging of war removes one more "danger" and damages our moral compass where war and destruction are concerned.

I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode "A taste of Armageddon".  Will we one day fight wars entirely by computer and proxy?  Will we eliminate the actual horrors of war until war becomes so routine that no one is motivated to end a war--EVER. Will we use the argument of saving American lives to wage proxy wars forever now.  Will we become so immune to war that no Presidential Candidate will even bother to run on a peace platform?  As long as it is happening "over there" and we don't see bodies coming home draped with flags, and no news reports, will be just sit quietly by while our nation becomes the best out-sourcer of war on the planet?

Isn't that what enemy combatants really are?  Enemies of the state that belong to no nation state, but we say are dangerous to our national security.  We declare then an enemy and lock them up never to see the light of day again, and we do it in secret so our precious sensibilities aren't offended by the horrors of what it takes to win at any cost.  Drones save us all from having to face the causalities and horrors of war, so we can sleep peacefully at night and never worry about the destruction we are causing to innocents   All in the name of national security.  

We were lied into a war with Iraq.  What did that cost us?  We're still in Afghanistan, and being urged all the time to go to war with Iran, Syria, and Libya.  If we fight drone wars will that make American sleep better in our unofficial war culture?  

And, will we surrender our personal freedoms so that wars can be won and our safety secured, when there is really no way to stop a terrorist wearing a suicide vest and a cause.  We say the "War on Terror", but it is a lot like the war on Drugs.  It's a nice sound byte, but when will it end?  Will it ever end?  And if it doesn't end, what will our freedoms look like them?  Because it isn't going to get better.  It is only going to get worse.

We act as if the United States is too powerful to ever fall.  But history teaches us that when it comes to empire, we are young whippersnappers at best.  The loss of personal freedom, the loss of Due Process, the loss of the rule of law, [and by that I mean law that is clear and not open to the latest partisan interpretation] and the numbing of our moral authority in the world can destroy this nation.

And I do not care if that sounds like I'm trying to scare people.  I am scared.  I am scared because it seems so few are alarmed about the Patriot Act, TSA inspections, The military Commissions act, Drone wars, and the killing of an American Citizen in a drone attack on foreign soil.  As soon as we say one citizen can be killed without due process, we condone tyranny and reject the rule of law.  We do that as citizens, not the President or the government.  We condone it.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#42 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 07:12 AM

Ya know Cait all of that ^^^ is true but there is NO NEED what-so-ever to try and paint people that aren't willing to get as amped up
as you are over this issue as so partisan that they are unwilling to see or act.  That's crap and you aren't listening.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#43 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 08:21 AM

I don't trust Obama at all.

Quote

In the US, mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats

Barack Obama's tears for the children of Newtown are in stark contrast to his silence over the children murdered by his drones

Hypotheticals are all well and good. But then there is reality.

Quote

Like George Bush's government in Iraq, Obama's administration neither documents nor acknowledges the civilian casualties of the CIA's drone strikes in north-west Pakistan. But a report by the law schools at Stanford and New York universities suggests that during the first three years of his time in office, the 259 strikes for which he is ultimately responsible killed between 297 and 569 civilians, of whom at least 64 were children. These are figures extracted from credible reports: there may be more which have not been fully documented.

The wider effects on the children of the region have been devastating. Many have been withdrawn from school because of fears that large gatherings of any kind are being targeted. There have been several strikes on schools since Bush launched the drone programme that Obama has expanded so enthusiastically: one of Bush's blunders killed 69 children.

The study reports that children scream in terror when they hear the sound of a drone. A local psychologist says that their fear and the horrors they witness is causing permanent mental scarring. Children wounded in drone attacks told the researchers that they are too traumatised to go back to school and have abandoned hopes of the careers they might have had. Their dreams as well as their bodies have been broken.
Bold mine.

Sparky

Edited by SparkyCola, 08 March 2013 - 02:54 PM.

Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#44 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 08:43 AM

View PostSparkyCola, on 07 March 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Anyone drawing attention to this critical issue has my support.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Rantin' Randy didn't do it for the dead, the orphans or the homeless.

View PostBobby, on 07 March 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

I didn't like it last month when they used them to search for that nutjob Dorner in California.  

That nutjob Dorner was briefly my congressperson.  As horrible an experience as it was, it did innoculate me against ever (I hope) going conservative.

View PostCait, on 07 March 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

How far removed from the consequences of war are we?  I mean for our soldiers.  How far?   We begin to remove all the danger and what is there to stop a war mentality?  War apparently is dangerous to all living things living outside the United States [and its allies]. We don't feel the loss of our young people the way we once did.  We don't question war the way we once did.  We certainly don't question the war economy, and we should.  Every new innovation in the waging of war removes one more "danger" and damages our moral compass where war and destruction are concerned.

My father was in the Pacific toward the end of WWII.  I'm glad he didn't die there.  If bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved his life, I'm okay with it.  If those bombings make us think before we nuke again, if it makes other countries think before they join us in that particular horror, I'm happy with it.  And as a former enlisted person, I'm grateful for any weapon that allows us to protect life and limb of those most likely to be used as cannon fodder.  I just wish it could protect mind as well.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#45 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:57 AM

For those who are against drones in all forms, Rand Paul is not your guy.  

http://thinkprogress...s-about-drones/
What Rand Paul Really Thinks About Drones


Quote

... That worry about drones is not universal for Paul, however, as he’s less concerned when it comes to enforcing border security via drone. Laying out his stance on comprehensive immigration reform, Paul published an op-ed in the Washington Times making clear that he felt that border security had to be addressed before a path to citizenship could be enacted:


Border security, including drones, satellite and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately and would be assessed at the end of one year by an investigator general from the Government Accountability Office.

Though he did not make it clear, it can be assumed that Paul was referring to drones of the unarmed variety, rather than advocating launching Hellfire missiles at immigrants attempting to cross the border.
Paul’s concerns about drones have also yet to extend into their use as a weapons platform in combating terror overseas. While holding the floor of the Senate, the junior Senator from Kentucky repeatedly acknowledged that strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have shown themselves effective. Paul also several times referenced the use of the tactic known as “signature strikes,” where groups of men between 16-55 who meet a certain profile are considered legitimate targets. These references were only spoken in opposition to the transfer of the tactic to being used against Americans, as Paul said he “didn’t want to say” whether their use as part of a strategy of targeted killing was in the right.

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#46 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:00 AM

Quote

Quote

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" ~ Mahatma Gandhi


Rantin' Randy didn't do it for the dead, the orphans or the homeless.

I wasn't talking about Rand Paul in that quote. I'm talking about Obama.

Hope and change is a nice slogan but actions speak louder than words - and right now this NIMBYism isn't working for me. It's ok to massacre children so long as they are not American children on American soil ? It's ok to bomb thousands of people so long as they aren't American? Is it so easy to be so cavalier about a massacre if we're talking about California instead of Hiroshima, or New York instead of Yemen? Texas instead of Afghanistan?
Like I said - you can talk about democracy and ideals all you like but it makes no difference to the civilians being killed if it is a dictatorship or Obama who is responsible for their deaths.

Edited by SparkyCola, 08 March 2013 - 02:53 PM.

Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#47 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:31 AM

How about adding Bush?

http://www.thebureau...ears-2004-2009/
The Bush Years: Pakistan strikes 2004 – 2009


Quote

The events detailed here occurred 2004 and the first days of 2009. These have been reported by US or Pakistani government, military and intelligence officials, and by credible media, academic and other sources, including on occasion Bureau researchers. Below is a summary of CIA drone strikes and casualty estimates for the Bush presidency. Please note that our data changes according to our current understanding of particular strikes. Below represents our present best estimate.
The Bush Years
Total CIA drone strikes 52 Total reported killed: 416-599 Civilians reported killed: 170-292 Children reported killed: 106-123 Total reported injured: 211-284

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#48 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:33 AM

View PostSparkyCola, on 08 March 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Quote

Quote

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" ~ Mahatma Gandhi


Rantin' Randy didn't do it for the dead, the orphans or the homeless.

I wasn't talking about Rand Paul in that quote. I'm talking about Obama.
Hope and change is a nice slogan but actions speak louder than words - and right now this NIMBYism isn't working for me. It's ok to massacre children so long as they are not American children on American soil ? It's ok to bomb thousands of people so long as they aren't American? Is it so easy to be so cavalier about a massacre if we're talking about California instead of Hiroshima, or New York instead of Yemen? Texas instead of Afghanistan?
Like I said - you can talk about democracy and ideals all you like but it makes no difference to the civilians being killed if it is a dictatorship or Obama who is responsible for their deaths.

Who ends up in charge might make a difference to their survivors.  I'm thinking about World War II.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#49 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:50 AM

http://www.deseretne...win.html?pg=all

Quote

The dispute between Paul and Holder began over a controversial Justice Department white paper leaked in early February that left civil libertarians flustered as to the rules on how lethal force might be used against American citizens.

As part of Brennan’s confirmation process, Paul pressed Brennan repeatedly for clarification on key points, including whether he believed the executive branch had authority to order an extrajudicial killing of an American citizen on American soil.

The subsequent response from Holder, critics argued, only raised further questions.

"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront," Holder wrote.
"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States."

Paul’s stated objective with the filibuster was to force the administration to clarify Holder’s hypothetical musing.

On Friday morning, Holder responded to Paul’s filibuster with a three sentence letter. “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question,” Holder wrote. “'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no.”

The Wall Street Journal editors, however, insisted the law was always clear on this point, however muddled the attorney general may have left it.

“The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else,” the editorial read. “What it can do under the laws of war is target an 'enemy combatant' anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity — a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda — that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict.”
Lee was puzzled, given the brevity and simplicity of Holder's letter on Thursday, that there was so much resistance to making the statement.

"The fact that it took that much effort to get such a benign statement was itself disconcerting," Lee said. "These are pretty simple principles. This should not be controversial."



If the answer is really clear and easy....then give it.  Don't piddle around and give anyone the opportunity to hold a filibuster to get that answer.

I'd like to talk about the drone program...with all its benefits and faults. Not rand paul who was just the messengers.  I don't care what his reasons for doing this filibuster were....because it is a subject that could use lot more light on it.

I'd prefer top move on past who brought the spotlight, quit talking about him and his motives etc.....and move on to the actual true subject that has most people concerned (far more so than who started this round of talk) which is the drone program.  I want those lines and boundaries more clearly defined for the use of drones.

And what Sparky said.

As to a comparison between the drone prgram under Bush as compared to Obama....I didn't like it then under Bush and I don't like it now under Obama.  I have an issue with the whole program and not sure I like the expanded use of drones.

Um, Nonny?  The reference to 'nutjob' Dorner by Bobby was to the former cop who was the focus of that manhunt last month....not the congressperson.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#50 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:53 AM

View PostBalderdash, on 08 March 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Ya know Cait all of that ^^^ is true but there is NO NEED what-so-ever to try and paint people that aren't willing to get as amped up
as you are over this issue as so partisan that they are unwilling to see or act.  That's crap and you aren't listening.

That's not what I was doing and there is no need whatsoever to use ALL caps to yell at me.  My opinion isn't crap, and I certainly am listening.  

I call a person a partisan when they act like a partisan.  Someone, anyone, who was up in arms about Bush Sr. and the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act, but brushes off the Drone attacks, killing Americans on foreign soil without due process and thinking the President has the right to kill Americans on American soil if need be, is by definition a partisan.  Being called a partisan isn't a bad thing.  It's just someone who believes in one side over another. So, lets not pretend I called anyone anything negative.  I simply stated the obvious.

My point in stating the obvious was to illustrate that these laws and Presidential expansion of power are bad for our freedoms no matter who does it.  It was wrong when W did it.  It is wrong now when Obama does it.  That Presidential power should NOT rely on a benevolent President who will use the power with perfect logic and morality.  The people should not have to trust the government to act wisely.  We should be able to see if the government is wise and state out loud when it isn't, without regard to political affiliations.  

We are sold the partisan lie every single day in news and radio imo.  The whole idea of politics today sis to convince you that the other side will "Destroy American" so vote for your guy.  Just don't look to closely at how much the same they all are.  Just pay attention to the differences and hate the other guy.  This is the lie political parties sell us so they can maintain their own power and get re-elected.  

And in closing, the fact that I believe that partisanship is tearing our country apart is MY opinion.  Republicans and Democrats alike believe there are only two sides to a political issue.  Well there are far more imo.  There are those like me who believe partisanship has caused a kind of political blindness.  We only see bad in the other side, and good in our own.  But to a non-partisan, we see a danger in both political parties.

And, I'm entitled to my opinion as a member without me being accused of spewing crap and not listening to others, thank you very much.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#51 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:05 PM

View PostTricia, on 08 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

http://www.deseretne...win.html?pg=all

Quote


“The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else,” the editorial read. “What it can do under the laws of war is target an 'enemy combatant' anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity — a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda — that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict.”
Lee was puzzled, given the brevity and simplicity of Holder's letter on Thursday, that there was so much resistance to making the statement.

"The fact that it took that much effort to get such a benign statement was itself disconcerting," Lee said. "These are pretty simple principles. This should not be controversial."


See this is exactly what I'm talking about. No where in the Constitution does it say that American citizens who are suspected pf being enemy combatants can be killed without due process.  In fact, the Constitution says exactly the opposite.  Yet in just one decade and two Presidents, everyone accepts that this is a true power of the President.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#52 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:21 PM

That statement bothers me too.

I read it after I posted it and I thought  'and when did that become acceptable?'

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#53 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:29 PM

View PostTricia, on 08 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Um, Nonny?  The reference to 'nutjob' Dorner by Bobby was to the former cop who was the focus of that manhunt last month....not the congressperson.

You're right.  I have made that mistake a few times already.  My nutjob former congressman was Dornan.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#54 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:33 PM

The word "search" could have been a clue, but it hasn't been for my previous slips.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#55 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

It's not enough that we can be killed by random circumstance, be in a building that is blown up by foreign or domestic terrorists, that we could be accused and tried for something we did not do, but to add in, even the slightest, tiniest chance, that we can be acceptable collateral damage or the actual target of a drone? What the heck, let's just toss out all our rights and allow our government to commit terrorist attacks on us, and any innocent person anywhere in the world.

I don't care if it's Bush or Obama or Josephine, the next president, this should not be done, and I really thought that Obama would be the one to say it stops. That he would say that what was approved under Bush, was a bad thing to do, and he was the man to protect the people. Apparently that thought was completely in error.
And it is in error as long as he and his administration refuse to give a definitive answer. If they want to keep the drones, then at least say that there are a lot of hoops to jump through to actually get to the point of using one, something, some specifics, none of this dancing around not giving an answer.

View PostCait, on 08 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

And in closing, the fact that I believe that partisanship is tearing our country apart is MY opinion.  Republicans and Democrats alike believe there are only two sides to a political issue.  Well there are far more imo.  There are those like me who believe partisanship has caused a kind of political blindness.  We only see bad in the other side, and good in our own.  But to a non-partisan, we see a danger in both political parties.

100% agreement, Cait.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#56 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:47 PM

TEAvangelical Bryan Fischer: Attend Tea Party, Get ‘Vaporized’ By A Drone!

http://aattp.org/tea...zed-by-a-drone/

Quote

This week, right-wing theocratic buffoon, Bryan Fischer is really on a roll! One day after claiming that “secular fundamentalists” are the “American Taliban,” Fischer turns his damaged intellect and paranoid rhetoric on the Tea Party and drones...
Fischer unwittingly admits that Tea Partiers could be seen as terrorists, (which some unarguably are) and could therefore be dealt with as such. The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence has compiled a list called the Insurrectionism Timelinewhich details violent terrorist attacks against Americans by Tea Party-type terrorists.

I especially l ike the part about how you wouldn't even know that a drone has hit your house till you were vaporized.  Gives new meaning to "news flash."
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#57 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:51 PM

The only candidate for president we've seen lately who would have stopped, or at least tried to stop, the drone program was Dennis Kucinich.  Think about how much support he's ever gotten.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#58 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:14 PM

Just to be clear, I realize that Republicans are ginning up the rhetoric against Obama for political advantage.  I know they are jumping to extreme scenarios in order to make Obama and the Democrats look bad.  I also recognize that Obama supporters feel the need to be supportive   I get that.

No Republicans [except Ron Paul] minded at all when W did things far worse imo.  Republicans rallied around the Chief to beat back the mean ol Democratic criticisms.  Partisans support their Party.  That's the way it is.  This is the kind of partisanship I'm talking about.  So, I understand that political points are making their rounds on this and partisanship among politicians is in full swing.  I get that.

That doesn't change the fact that all of it is wrong.  Politically wrong and morally wrong.  It does not matter who did it first, especially when each subsequent President does it too.  What DOES matter is that we [as a people] talk about it and debate what our leaders do in our name.  We have a representative government.  We decide what the POV of the government should and will be.  We decide [or we should]. We aren't told by the government what they will or won't do to our freedoms.  That is unconstitutional.  We decide to give them up or fight to keep them.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#59 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:24 PM

View PostCait, on 08 March 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. No where in the Constitution does it say that American citizens who are suspected pf being enemy combatants can be killed without due process.  In fact, the Constitution says exactly the opposite.
Inherent in the concept of warfare is the notion that enemy combatants may be targeted without going through a judicial process. If American citizens were somehow exempt from that, any Union soldier who killed an enemy during an offensive action in the Civil War would have been guilty of murder.

The problem is not that Americans can be considered enemy combatants under certain circumstances, because of course they can. The problem is when the government expands the definition of "enemy combatant" to include people who aren't actually soldiers on the battlefield in any conventional sense.

#60 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:52 PM

^ Yes.

And yes, Rand Paul is kind of a nut, but that's part of the problem. As Amy Goodman said in her article:

Quote

Where are the civil libertarians in the president's party that we must rely on a Tea Party Republican to champion this issue?

To me it's less significant to see who is talking about this obviously important issue - and more significant the large number of people who AREN'T.

Quote

Barack Obama and John Brennan direct the drone strikes that are killing thousands of civilians. It doesn't make us safer. It makes whole populations, from Yemen to Pakistan, hate us. Senator Paul's outrage with the president's claimed right to kill US citizens is entirely appropriate. That there is not more outrage at the thousands killed around the globe is shameful … and dangerous.

And the problem is we're still not talking about it. I agree with a lot of what Cait is saying in this thread - but we're talking about talking about it. We're not actually talking about it!! This thread is a little too "meta" !

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics, 2013, Rand Paul, Filibuster, Drone Policy, Senate

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users