stlouiedipalma;1402141 wrote:Well, Rand Paul surely proved the old adage about "the apple not falling far from the tree". His filibuster accomplished two things, in my view. He played to the right-wing base, as evidenced by the hearty support among the OC wingnuts. Perhaps he feels that alone will put him into the conversation in 2016. Hard to tell what's floating around inside that conspiracy-driven mind of his, so we won't even speculate. The other thing he accomplished is establishing that he's as bat-shit crazy as his Daddy. Now he can claim the title of the Libertarian leader, whatever that's worth these days. Oh, yes, he did a third thing as well. He provided red-meat fodder for Fox News, as they were playing this up as if it were the most important issue of the day. They needed something to distract the fallout from Roger Ailes' book.

Senator McCain, is that you?

justincredible;1402150 wrote:Senator McCain, is that you?

Nonsense. Even though Senator McCain says and believes the same things, he is an icky Republican. Louie is a proud Democrat. Big difference.

Cleveland Buck;1402175 wrote:Nonsense. Even though Senator McCain says and believes the same things, he is an icky Republican. Louie is a proud Democrat. Big difference.

Derp. My mistake.

Senators McCain and Graham believe they are stars of the republican party. While they are dining with the president Rand Paul's stealing the show. You see McCain and Graham are professional DC politicians Rand Paul and Ted Cruz just don't understand how things work in Washington. Paul and Cruz need to assume their place in the background while McCain and Graham work the cameras.

majorspark;1402199 wrote:Senators McCain and Graham believe they are stars of the republican party. While they are dining with the president Rand Paul's stealing the show. You see McCain and Graham are professional DC politicians Rand Paul and Ted Cruz just don't understand how things work in Washington. Paul and Cruz need to assume their place in the background while McCain and Graham work the cameras.

Indeed.

stlouiedipalma;1402141 wrote:Well, Rand Paul surely proved the old adage about "the apple not falling far from the tree". His filibuster accomplished two things, in my view. He played to the right-wing base, as evidenced by the hearty support among the OC wingnuts. Perhaps he feels that alone will put him into the conversation in 2016. Hard to tell what's floating around inside that conspiracy-driven mind of his, so we won't even speculate. The other thing he accomplished is establishing that he's as bat-**** crazy as his Daddy. Now he can claim the title of the Libertarian leader, whatever that's worth these days. Oh, yes, he did a third thing as well. He provided red-meat fodder for Fox News, as they were playing this up as if it were the most important issue of the day. They needed something to distract the fallout from Roger Ailes' book.

Lucky for you that the pesky constitution Paul was defending gives you the right to show everyone you don't have a clue about what was going on.

stlouiedipalma;1402141 wrote:Well, Rand Paul surely proved the old adage about "the apple not falling far from the tree". His filibuster accomplished two things, in my view. He played to the right-wing base, as evidenced by the hearty support among the OC wingnuts. Perhaps he feels that alone will put him into the conversation in 2016. Hard to tell what's floating around inside that conspiracy-driven mind of his, so we won't even speculate. The other thing he accomplished is establishing that he's as bat-shit crazy as his Daddy. Now he can claim the title of the Libertarian leader, whatever that's worth these days. Oh, yes, he did a third thing as well. He provided red-meat fodder for Fox News, as they were playing this up as if it were the most important issue of the day. They needed something to distract the fallout from Roger Ailes' book.

Huh ...

So you're telling me that pushing for concrete assurance that American citizens posing no immediate threat receive due process is bat-shit crazy conspiracy talk.

I'm wondering what your reaction to this would have been if former-President Bush had taken the same position as President Obama (which I'd suggest would have been more than likely).

In all seriousness, though, what did you actually object to about what he was saying? Any specifics that were particularly bat-shit crazy?

BTW, how long did people watch/listen to it yesterday? (Apologies if this was already asked)

I'd guess I spent at least 7 hours listening/watching throughout the day. It was fantastic background listening while I worked.

O-Trap;1402219 wrote:In all seriousness, though, what did you actually object to about what he was saying? Any specifics that were particularly bat-shit crazy?

He was, you know, talking for a long time. And...he's a republican. So there's that.

justincredible;1402221 wrote:BTW, how long did people watch/listen to it yesterday? (Apologies if this was already asked)

I'd guess I spent at least 7 hours listening/watching throughout the day. It was fantastic background listening while I worked.

I spent 3-4 hours watching/listening once I heard about it. Thought it was pretty darn awesome and made me proud to work in Kentucky for the first time ever.

justincredible;1402222 wrote:He was, you know, talking for a long time. And...he's a republican. So there's that.

Yeah, but I mean, the crux of it was advocating the rights of citizens while wanting stricter reigns on the US military. You'd think that would be right up the alley for any professed Democrat.

A professed Democrat just wants what the propaganda his party his putting out there. Issues don't matter. I confront republicans who talk about how Dems take away their freedom (but they make exceptions for the Patriotic Act)

Terry_Tate;1402245 wrote:I spent 3-4 hours watching/listening once I heard about it. Thought it was pretty darn awesome and made me proud to work in Kentucky for the first time ever.

Same...except for the working in Kentucky part.

"I don't think the laws of war apply to America. I think the Bill of Rights do," Paul said.

Which I thought was pretty clear, except obviously for enemy combatants. McCain appears to agree with me. And I agree with him that this was a political stunt - which is to say nothing that Paul was contesting was changed, it was just worded slightly differently with no change in meaning (just giving Paul an out to drop his stunt).

The Bill of Rights always applied on American soil - the POTUS can't unilaterally trump that (except in war time - which is why they said enemy combatants, and refused to restrict themselves to imminent danger and it's even murkier shades of gray). Like I said, Paul got you guys all fired-up with a classic strawman. Yes, good for Ron Paul....getting his campaign spiel in swing early.

gut;1402259 wrote:"I don't think the laws of war apply to America. I think the Bill of Rights do," Paul said.

Which I thought was pretty clear, except obviously for enemy combatants. McCain appears to agree with me. And I agree with him that this was a political stunt - which is to say nothing that Paul was contesting was changed, it was just worded slightly differently with no change in meaning (just giving Paul an out to drop his stunt).

The Bill of Rights always applied on American soil - the POTUS can't unilaterally trump that (except in war time - which is why they said enemy combatants, and refused to restrict themselves to imminent danger and it's even murkier shades of gray). Like I said, Paul got you guys all fired-up with a classic strawman. Yes, good for Ron Paul....getting his campaign spiel in swing early.

The problem is with who gets to determine what qualifies you as an enemy combatant, as well as what constitutes war time. We apparently no longer hold that Congress has to declare war. It seems as though the President can pretty much cry "war," and it's so.

As for who defines an enemy combatant, I'd be curious how easily a civilian who might say or do things things someone in power doesn't like could be deemed one.

The problem, then, is that the power to override the Bill of Rights is largely in the hands of the people who would carry it out. More succinctly, the Bill of Rights applies until those in power decide it shouldn't, at which point, they can declare a "War on Terror" or some such nonsense, deem someone to be a combatant, and are then free to do as they please. There is no system in place to ensure that such cannot happen. That's SUPPOSED to be due process. That's sort of the POINT of due process.

Without it, you pretty much have a textbook case of someone acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

Now, perhaps Paul's filibuster didn't change the immediate outcome. Does that necessarily mean it did nothing? I suggest it does not. Even if it communicates a message that appeals to the American people, which comes to fruition after he has left politics, I would submit to you that it has had an effect.

O-Trap;1402274 wrote:The problem is with who gets to determine what qualifies you as an enemy combatant, as well as what constitutes war time. We apparently no longer hold that Congress has to declare war. It seems as though the President can pretty much cry "war," and it's so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the POTUS has always had broad emergency powers, and actually has 90 days of conflict before needing an official declaration of war.

As for the enemy combatant, you'd still have to potentially defend that in front of a Congressional hearing, and would not necessarily be immune from criminal prosecution. The difference I've been talking about with "imminent danger" is the latter is a much grayer area a POTUS and his advisers wouldn't volunteer to subject themselves to because you have to establish not only the danger, but that it was imminent...and then you can start splitting hairs over probabilities - is 95% certain sufficient? Classifying someone as an enemy combatant would presumably be a bit more black & white. And the simple fact of the matter is the policy really isn't any different than it has been, the only new introduction is that the POTUS would potentially use a drone where he would have used troops in the past.

Take off the tinfoil hat - a person can't be deemed an enemy combatant remotely as easily as they can be "framed" for violating the law (which, again with apologies to conspiracy theorists, just doesn't happen). A POTUS isn't going to send a drone to do his dirty work when he could just have the guy framed, if the purpose is to eliminate opposition.

Paul used the bullypulpit to make a lot of other pertinent points, but the stated purpose was a strawman. And the proof of that is he stepped down with no real change or clarification to the policy.

I'm just calling it for what it is - he was grandstanding. Everyone knows I'm not an Obama boot-licker.

O-Trap;1402274 wrote:The problem is with who gets to determine what qualifies you as an enemy combatant, as well as what constitutes war time. We apparently no longer hold that Congress has to declare war. It seems as though the President can pretty much cry "war," and it's so.

As for who defines an enemy combatant, I'd be curious how easily a civilian who might say or do things things someone in power doesn't like could be deemed one.

The problem, then, is that the power to override the Bill of Rights is largely in the hands of the people who would carry it out. More succinctly, the Bill of Rights applies until those in power decide it shouldn't, at which point, they can declare a "War on Terror" or some such nonsense, deem someone to be a combatant, and are then free to do as they please. There is no system in place to ensure that such cannot happen. That's SUPPOSED to be due process. That's sort of the POINT of due process.

Without it, you pretty much have a textbook case of someone acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

Now, perhaps Paul's filibuster didn't change the immediate outcome. Does that necessarily mean it did nothing? I suggest it does not. Even if it communicates a message that appeals to the American people, which comes to fruition after he has left politics, I would submit to you that it has had an effect.

Pretty much how I see it. I don't think the filibuster changed any policy. If the government wants to kill you, they will. The law means nothing to them. I just hope the filibuster wakes people up to the fact that they do have the right to their life and to a jury trial, and that the government is drastically overstepping the privileges we gave them.

Cleveland Buck;1402287 wrote:Pretty much how I see it. I don't think the filibuster changed any policy. If the government wants to kill you, they will. The law means nothing to them. I just hope the filibuster wakes people up to the fact that they do have the right to their life and to a jury trial, and that the government is drastically overstepping the privileges we gave them.

Again, if the gubmit can set me up as an enemy combatant, the same evidence would easily get me convicted at a jury trial. Taking them out with a drone instead is a sledge-hammer approach to oppression and totalitarian regimes tend to be rather a bit more subtle.

The reality is if this was GWB he'd almost certainly have the same drone policy, including what Obama has done abroad. And the right (which obviously doesn't include Paul) would be just as silent as the left is now.

gut;1402292 wrote:Again, if the gubmit can set me up as an enemy combatant, the same evidence would easily get me convicted at a jury trial.

You may be on to something. Imagine how much more efficient the judicial system would be if we just did away with trials and just had the police blow your brains out when they feel they have enough evidence against you. We could save billions of taxpayer dollars.

Cleveland Buck;1402296 wrote:You may be on to something. Imagine how much more efficient the judicial system would be if we just did away with trials and just had the police blow your brains out when they feel they have enough evidence against you. We could save billions of taxpayer dollars.

The point is enemy combatant is actually a higher standard, and the tinfoil hats are ignoring this. It's easier and less risky, political and otherwise, to get you for violating any number of thousands of laws, even fabricating a little evidence if need be. I'm not going to have to answer questions from the press for obliterating someone with a drone, and I'm not going to have to go before Congress to justify the classification of enemy combatant. And I'm not going to have to deal with fallout from potential collateral damage.

In this case you're going to get your due process after the fact, and the very real potential for impeachment and/or imprisonment for abuse is why these absurd scenarios don't come to pass. It's power the POTUS has always had, so I'm not sure why people are railing that Obama is suddenly rewriting the law. If someone pulls out a gun, law enforcement doesn't necessarily have to wait until he fires it to use lethal force.

O-Trap;1402274 wrote:The problem is with who gets to determine what qualifies you as an enemy combatant, as well as what constitutes war time. We apparently no longer hold that Congress has to declare war. It seems as though the President can pretty much cry "war," and it's so.

As for who defines an enemy combatant, I'd be curious how easily a civilian who might say or do things things someone in power doesn't like could be deemed one.

The problem, then, is that the power to override the Bill of Rights is largely in the hands of the people who would carry it out. More succinctly, the Bill of Rights applies until those in power decide it shouldn't, at which point, they can declare a "War on Terror" or some such nonsense, deem someone to be a combatant, and are then free to do as they please. There is no system in place to ensure that such cannot happen. That's SUPPOSED to be due process. That's sort of the POINT of due process.

Without it, you pretty much have a textbook case of someone acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

Now, perhaps Paul's filibuster didn't change the immediate outcome. Does that necessarily mean it did nothing? I suggest it does not. Even if it communicates a message that appeals to the American people, which comes to fruition after he has left politics, I would submit to you that it has had an effect.

This post is good.

gut;1402321 wrote:If someone pulls out a gun, law enforcement doesn't necessarily have to wait until he fires it to use lethal force.

No, but if he is planning to pull out a gun at some future time, they do, and then they need a jury to convict him in order to hold him.

Thinking the threat of impeachment means anything to these guys is a joke. If Obama hasn't already been impeached he could do anything. Did you know that today only 15 House Republicans voted to defund Obamacare. 15 out of 234. Still think they are on different teams? Hell, most of them would love the chance to grab the joystick and bomb a bus load of libertarians.

One more time, this is not some rewriting of the laws. The only thing that has changed is they can do with a drone what they've always had the power to do with the military. And it's never been done (although I'd bet money UA 93 was ordered shot down, and may actually have been shotdown). Different times as we are now dealing with not only non-state sponsored combatants, but Americans joining in. I'll take that back - there are several cases of martial law being instituted in the US, most recently in NO after Katrina.

It's all just grandstanding. There's not a remotely logical or rationale reason why they wouldn't just pick someone up within our borders (which is distinctly different from behind enemy lines) UNLESS the extreme situation of imminent danger (which, again, the police would already have justification for lethal force).

It's bad logic to assume they would take the path of greatest resistance to silence someone. Why use a drone when you could just send a thug to make it look like an accident? Sometimes smart people just seem to have their hot buttons that turns their brain off.

Anyway, good for Rand Paul. He scored points with his base and some others.

But it's still fear mongering. Just in this case his particular brand is targeted at a different group than when say, the neocons, do it.

gut;1402356 wrote:Anyway, good for Rand Paul. He scored points with his base and some others.

But it's still fear mongering. Just in this case his particular brand is targeted at a different group than when say, the neocons, do it.

Comparing this to the Neo Cons? Not even close. The Neo cons fear mongering just kills people, waste time and wastes money.