Desperate Randy Paul debates drones in Senate dreading dangerous domestic drones

[Terxpahseyton]

Rand Paul (I assume he uses the nickname for the obvious connection with Ayn Rand, even though it's not his given name).

Good for Ron Paul. Makes his son all the more questionable.

 

[Core Imposter]

There is a difference between a lethal strike by a politician or a bureaucrat as opposed to the use of lethal force by law enforcement. The president is not the chief law enforcement officer.

Read here an excerpt from wiki:

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the United States Armed Forces from exercising Law enforcement agency powers within a State, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it requires that any authority to do so must exist within the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.[1] Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress. Any infringement will be problematic for political and legal reasons.

The issue is allowing the chief executive to act without due process or an act of Congress specific to the instance. It is a pretty big deal.

As far back as Rome the dangers were understood. When Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon with a legion he had committed an act of insurrection punishable by death under the law of the Roman Republic.

And became dictator in his victory thus ending the Roman Republic.

This is a big deal. Our laws have become so blurred that it is almost is paving the way for an American president to cross his own Rubicon, to fulfill the quote in my signature. I support Paul's effort.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree with what Murky et al. have said--it's how the drones are being used that's the problem, not the drones themselves.

I'm both overjoyed that we have actual filibusters and kinda sad that Bernie Sanders has to share the stage with Rand Paul (I assume he uses the nickname for the obvious connection with Ayn Rand, even though it's not his given name).

I'm a litttle upset that the son of Paul has to share the stage with Bernie Sanders. Oh well. I guess its OK if Bernie Sanders supports something that's good.

Good for Ron Paul. Makes his son all the more questionable.

If that's why Rand is using it than yeah, that would be kinda funny. Rand isn't even a libertarian though, let alone an interventonist. He's just a constitutional conservative that isn't a jingoistic warmongerer. I'd think Ron would at least be more likely to associate with Ayn than Rand Paul would.

 

[Antilogic]

I'm a litttle upset that the son of Paul has to share the stage with Bernie Sanders. Oh well. I guess its OK if Bernie Sanders supports something that's good.

His filibuster was protesting the tax deal back in 2010. Spoke for over 8 hours, then it was passed anyway.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't have a problem in theory with the use of drone technology. What I have a problem with is the arbitrary killing of Americans without trial, the arbitrary spying on Americans without trial, and thirdly, even if they're unsubstantiated accusations regarding these people being terrorists are correct, there's still a lot of collateral damage.

And you have proof that drones have been used to arbitrarily kill Americans without trial? Hint: Killing Americans who are fighting with Al Qaeda in the Middle East against America is hardly arbitrary and is usually subject to some sort of review.

So what actual evidence (not just your suspicion) do you have that they will wantonly kill random americans for lulz?

I have no idea. Hobbs said that people don't like them because "There's no pilot" (His words, so don't ask me, ask Hobbs.) I don't really care about the fact that they're unmanned. That has nothing to do with the fact that I'm opposed to it.

It was not even a comment that was directed at you in any case. However, since you seem to lack any facts to base your assertions on, I feel comfortable lumping you in with that crowd. You lack basic understanding of how many, many things in this world works, which is fine, we all do. However, when confronted with that which you don't understand and cannot ignore, you spend all of your effort forcing the issue into your Paulian worldview.

You (might as well be):
Drones don't have pilots!
The facts:
Yes they do.
You:
They're from the government and therefore should be destroyed because they're evil!
Everyone else:
Why?
You:
It's a conspiracy to take my rights and guns!*



*cue the next gun rights derail

 

[GhostWriter16]

First of all, I'd think you'd need to prove that they were actually fighting us in the Middle East. Pretty sure the administration didn't.

Second of all, if they are fighting us in the Middle East, I don't think we have a right to kill them. Its kind of absurd when you think about it. It would be like if I broke into your house and you tried to kill me, so I killed you and called it self-defense. We're the aggressors, not them.

 

[Antilogic]

And you have proof that drones have been used to arbitrarily kill Americans without trial? Hint: Killing Americans who are fighting with Al Qaeda in the Middle East against America is hardly arbitrary and is usually subject to some sort of review.

So what actual evidence (not just your suspicion) do you have that they will wantonly kill random americans for lulz?

The review "process" seems to be done internally within the executive branch and the CIA and does not pass through the judicial system. And given the language in the early memos that were released, it seems like the legal justification is much broader than previously thought--that was why the discussion around the terms "imminent threat" and "ongoing threat" is contentious.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

First of all, I'd think you'd need to prove that they were actually fighting us in the Middle East. Pretty sure the administration didn't.

Second of all, if they are fighting us in the Middle East, I don't think we have a right to kill them. Its kind of absurd when you think about it. It would be like if I broke into your house and you tried to kill me, so I killed you and called it self-defense. We're the aggressors, not them.

How to prove someone is fighting the US in the Middle East:
Step 1
Watch youtube video of an American citizen declairing war on the US with his Al Qaeda buddies in the middle east

Follow Up:

Step 2
Drone-bomb him

Step 3
Pay Hobbs for designing said drone.

How is killing someone in the Middle East in a country that was not invaded by the US who declared war on the US and then acted with a bunch of terrorists to carry out plots against the US not an act of self defense and also not a justified act of war?


Or right because Jefferson Davis was right along and the American Al Qaeda's are just proving that the south will rise again! in the desert 5000 miles away.

The review "process" seems to be done internally within the executive branch and the CIA and does not pass through the judicial system. And given the language in the early memos that were released, it seems like the legal justification is much broader than previously thought--that was why the discussion around the terms "imminent threat" and "ongoing threat" is contentious.

Well, that's something to quibble over and it certainly has more merit to it as an argument than the Al Qaeda can sucede because it's in the constitution tack our Paulite friend is taking.

I would like to mention that we should be careful to differentiate when we are talking about enemy combatants overseas working with Al Qaeda and when we are talking about random drone strikes in the US of A. They both need oversight and should be subject to some sort of judicial review, but in the former case it's entirely acceptable to set the bar much, much, much lower.

 

[GhostWriter16]

It may seem bad but the fifth amendment literally cannot apply to the government in this case. The government is guilty until proven innocent. That may seem counter-intuitive at first, but if you really think about it, innocent until proven guilty is a sham if the government cannot be held to guilty until proven innocent.

This means that if we can prove that the government killed someone, which they certainly have, it is their obligation to prove that they did so with justification, otherwise they are guilty of violating the fifth, and what is morally equivalent to murder.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Wow. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I will call you next time I need legal advice fo sho.

 

[dutchfire]

edit: x-post with dutchfire: The police however is subject to investigation of any killing, because it is defined when lethal force is justified and it is supposed to be ensured that those rules are uphold. Rand seems to basically ask the same for drone strikes, which abroad are made use of without clear rules (or investigations) against American citizens.

I'd encourage such investigations to occur if a drone was used to kill someone on American soil.

What's the difference between a drone and a fighter dropping a bomb to end a high speed chase? What's the difference between using a cop for crowd control or using a tank? What's the difference between sending cops or sending a cruise missile?

I would say clear and lethal danger to citizens or inhabitants of the US would be a useful criterion. I'm sure they could find some unemployed law student to make that more thorough, but I expect such regulations to already exist for police services. I would apply the same regulations to drones.

And, for what it is worth, I think the police sometimes uses their guns to stop a high speed chase (if the driver is armed and going into high population area for example. I don't see a difference between police hand guns, a drone or an F16 fighter in that case, except for practicalities.

 

[Crezth]

It may seem bad but the fifth amendment literally cannot apply to the government in this case. The government is guilty until proven innocent. That may seem counter-intuitive at first, but if you really think about it, innocent until proven guilty is a sham if the government cannot be held to guilty until proven innocent.

This means that if we can prove that the government killed someone, which they certainly have, it is their obligation to prove that they did so with justification, otherwise they are guilty of violating the fifth, and what is morally equivalent to murder.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[peter grimes]

What the hell are you talking about?

See, if you really think about it, you can just logic anything without going through the formalities of deduction or induction.

Spoiler :

 

[Borachio]

Is it just part of his stand-up comedy material?

To be honest, I think it needs quite a bit more work before he goes public with it. Otherwise his audience are just likely to be baffled.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

As far as I can tell, your reason for not liking them isn't any more rational than that. Enlighten me.

I think it's less that drones are being used on people but more that they just decided to throw drones at people if they don't care much for the person being alive anymore. No trial and what not.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

When does that happen against an American who is not working with Al Qaeda in a warzone?

 

[ace99]

It happened to a 16 year old American citizen who was not working with Al-Qaida.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Rand Paul should legally change his first name to "Sue" just so people will no longer falsely think it has anything at all to to with Ayn Rand.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It happened to a 16 year old American citizen who was not working with Al-Qaida.

So once? And that makes drone strikes a pressing constitutional issue?

What did Holder end up saying about drone strikes against American citizens in the US anyhow? Did he have anything to say about drone strikes against Americans overseas?

 

[sophie]

So once? And that makes drone strikes a pressing constitutional issue?

What did Holder end up saying about drone strikes against American citizens in the US anyhow? Did he have anything to say about drone strikes against Americans overseas?

US Attorney General replied "no" and that was that.