Rand Paul insane.

Dung,
Maybe we are going to make some progress. Now that we have cut through all the name calling and emotional rhetoric from those who are upset by my point.
What specifically do you have a problem with regarding PresidentObama's drone program?

(1) We don't know pursuant to what legal autority the President claims to have the power to kill U.S. citizens.

(2) We don't know under what specific circumstances the President claims his exercise of those powers is legitimate, other than what was revealed in the white paper that the press got hold of a short while ago.

(3) Even assuming the President has the authority to kill U.S. citizens in certain circumstances, the white paper suggests that the president can exercise this authrity under circumstances in which there is no imminent threat to the United States or its citizens (other than the one targeted for killing) under an reasonable definition of the term "imminent."

(4) We don't know whether there is any territorial restriction on the drone program as relates to U.S. citizens because the Administration has not released the legal memos outlining its scope and the legal authority for it.

(5) Because we don't know pursuant to what legal authority the President claims the power, we dont' know if the President believes that Congress can do anythign about it. If he claims the power pursuant to Article II, then he's basically saying that he has the power to kill U.S. citizens and Congress can't do anythign about it. That's, well, problematic.

. . . and cetera, but there's a good start.

Also, too, what Ron Wyden said:

Mr. President, what it comes down to is every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

And we don't know.
 
I stopped reading when you made the terrorists comic book bad guys. If you have to imagine criminals so stupid they hand you opportunities to defeat themselves in order to make your premise, you need to rethink your position.

THat was the point, because it was the premise Holder set up and Paul took the bait.
 
(1) We don't know pursuant to what legal autority the President claims to have the power to kill U.S. citizens.

(2) We don't know under what specific circumstances the President claims his exercise of those powers is legitimate, other than what was revealed in the white paper that the press got hold of a short while ago.

(3) Even assuming the President has the authority to kill U.S. citizens in certain circumstances, the white paper suggests that the president can exercise this authrity under circumstances in which there is no imminent threat to the United States or its citizens (other than the one targeted for killing) under an reasonable definition of the term "imminent."

(4) We don't know whether there is any territorial restriction on the drone program as relates to U.S. citizens because the Administration has not released the legal memos outlining its scope and the legal authority for it.

(5) Because we don't know pursuant to what legal authority the President claims the power, we dont' know if the President believes that Congress can do anythign about it. If he claims the power pursuant to Article II, then he's basically saying that he has the power to kill U.S. citizens and Congress can't do anythign about it. That's, well, problematic.

. . . and cetera, but there's a good start.

Also, too, what Ron Wyden said:



And we don't know.

I agree with every point you made here, and belive its a big deal. I simply dont like Rand Pauls tacticts and belive he chose the weakest of all the points to stand on. Its also clear he is using a very important issue to grandstand.
 
We still have the Terminator and Rambo... not to mention Chuck friggin Norris. All getting up there in age, but still capable of taking out a few measly terrorists.

Okay, then we should clearly scrap the drone program.
 
I agree with every point you made here, and belive its a big deal. I simply dont like Rand Pauls tacticts and belive he chose the weakest of all the points to stand on. Its also clear he is using a very important issue to grandstand.


I don't mind the grandstanding at all. He's the only one to actually do anything about it.
 
Maybe, I call it using my energy on more important stuff. You could have called Einstein lazy for not combing his hair.

Yeah, and that opinion is lazy and rather selfish. But whatever... nevermind.

Nobody else was burdened by Einstein's messy hair.
 
I agree with every point you made here, and belive its a big deal. I simply dont like Rand Pauls tacticts and belive he chose the weakest of all the points to stand on. Its also clear he is using a very important issue to grandstand.

What method would you like to have seen used to draw the most attention possible to the protesting of the drone program?
 
I agree with every point you made here, and belive its a big deal. I simply dont like Rand Pauls tacticts and belive he chose the weakest of all the points to stand on. Its also clear he is using a very important issue to grandstand.

He is not grandstanding. You are just pretending his point is the strawman you created and support with Holder's evasive and manipulative response. His point is that the administration needs to be more open about their justifications for killing Americans. Brennan is absolutely relevant to the discussion.

Paul asked many questions and Holder gave Cheney like evasive and manipulative responses.

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan1.pdf
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdf
http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan3.pdf
 
I saw it as grandstanding. HE can give a speech, he can go on the networks, he can write an open letter to the NYT. He can ask all the questions he wants at comfirmation hearings. He can implore his party to allow a vote on a change in the authorazition to use force.

Or he can try to get his face on TV in the contuct of a meaningless task of holding up senate business for 8 hours.
 
I saw it as grandstanding. HE can give a speech, he can go on the networks, he can write an open letter to the NYT. He can ask all the questions he wants at comfirmation hearings. He can implore his party to allow a vote on a change in the authorazition to use force.

Or he can try to get his face on TV in the contuct of a meaningless task of holding up senate business for 8 hours.


Basically, you're upset at a politician acting like a politician.
 
This is random but my buddy just posted this on Facebook after calling Rand Paul a f'ing crazy tea party nut...

"So Mr. Paul Rand, let me ask you this: If an American member of Al Queda takes you hostage in the US, you'd be against using drones against that individual to save your ass? What if one shot from a drone resulted in your release and your captors death? Unlikely yes, but your point you made for 13 hours is DUMB."

I'm not an expert on drones which is why I ask this question but there's no way if you are being held hostage in a room or a building a drone is going to take someone else out and not get you at the same time is there?
 
Last edited:
I saw it as grandstanding. HE can give a speech, he can go on the networks, he can write an open letter to the NYT. He can ask all the questions he wants at comfirmation hearings. He can implore his party to allow a vote on a change in the authorazition to use force.

Or he can try to get his face on TV in the contuct of a meaningless task of holding up senate business for 8 hours.

Yeah, like they are taking care of so much more important business over there. The people have a right to know whether the administration believes it has an unlimited and unchecked power to kill American citizens. How about attacking the administration for their stalling and obstruction. The point is to draw attention to the issue and push past their attempts to ignore it until it goes away. Maybe you don't care or want to be bothered but many of Paul's supporters and those of the other Senators involved, do.
 
Back
Top