Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Rand Paul's epic filibuster


Recommended Posts

So it's ok to use drones against foreign terrorists, but not domestic terrorists? I agree that the government shouldn't be allowed to use drones on American Citizens whenever they want or whoever they want, but at some point you have to look at the practical side. Do we risk more lives trying to take someone alive, just to protect their rights? Or should we just call in a quick drone strike to take him out if he's alone and has OBVIOUSLY killed multiple people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"just to protect their rights?"

A government that doesn't protect the rights of the citizen has no reason to exist.

I am amazed that anyone would so gladly surrender their rights. It seems to me that so many people in the past fought, bled, suffered and died to secure and protect those rights. I can't say "thank you" to them. They're dead. But I can damn well remember their sacrifice and hold the gift that they earned for me in the highest regard. I won't cast aside those rights to make it more expedient for some f*cking bureaucrat to sign a death order. If someone is suspected of breaking the law then they can be arrested, tried, maybe convicted and executed. Due process of law in a free country, not execution at the whim of a King or a group of democratically elected tyrants. 

 

Here's the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution in case they never taught that one in whatever Rockefeller Indoctrination Center known as public schools you may have attended:

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want Barak Obama himself to stand up and explain in detail who gets to choose the murder targets, who decides the acceptable level of collateral damage and what criteria are used to decide who is an eligible target. This goes for all aspects of this unending war on terror.

 

me too. it's great that the executive branch can override due process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"just to protect their rights?"

A government that doesn't protect the rights of the citizen has no reason to exist.

I am amazed that anyone would so gladly surrender their rights. It seems to me that so many people in the past fought, bled, suffered and died to secure and protect those rights. I can't say "thank you" to them. They're dead. But I can damn well remember their sacrifice and hold the gift that they earned for me in the highest regard. I won't cast aside those rights to make it more expedient for some f*cking bureaucrat to sign a death order. If someone is suspected of breaking the law then they can be arrested, tried, maybe convicted and executed. Due process of law in a free country, not execution at the whim of a King or a group of democratically elected tyrants.

Here's the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution in case they never taught that one in whatever Rockefeller Indoctrination Center known as public schools you may have attended:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I wholeheartedly agree.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want Barak Obama himself to stand up and explain in detail who gets to choose the murder targets, who decides the acceptable level of collateral damage and what criteria are used to decide who is an eligible target. This goes for all aspects of this unending war on terror.

 

Death Panels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone actually believe that drones can be used on "domestic terrorists" who aren't american citizens without the risk of collateral damage to american citizens?

 

Also, what about american citizens deemed to be domestic terrorists?  Who decides they are?  Is there a trial of some sort?  Do they get due process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone actually believe that drones can be used on "domestic terrorists" who aren't american citizens without the risk of collateral damage to american citizens?

 

Also, what about american citizens deemed to be domestic terrorists?  Who decides they are?  Is there a trial of some sort?  Do they get due process?

They would continue to be dealt with through law enforcement like they are now. Drones are a military weapon and would only be used when military action was called for, legal and justified like any other military action on American soil would require.

 

And yes, drones could target domestic terrorist with minimal collateral damage - less then say a full on military invasion or an aerial assault, but again, this is only an extreme circumstance - one of which we have not had at any point and probably never will. I asked this before and didn't get much of a response, are there any circumstances where the US could use lethal military action on US soil in a legal and justified cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"just to protect their rights?"

A government that doesn't protect the rights of the citizen has no reason to exist.

I am amazed that anyone would so gladly surrender their rights. It seems to me that so many people in the past fought, bled, suffered and died to secure and protect those rights. I can't say "thank you" to them. They're dead. But I can damn well remember their sacrifice and hold the gift that they earned for me in the highest regard. I won't cast aside those rights to make it more expedient for some f*cking bureaucrat to sign a death order. If someone is suspected of breaking the law then they can be arrested, tried, maybe convicted and executed. Due process of law in a free country, not execution at the whim of a King or a group of democratically elected tyrants. 

 

Here's the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution in case they never taught that one in whatever Rockefeller Indoctrination Center known as public schools you may have attended:

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Except no one is suggesting this kind of thing should be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holder’s response on Thursday was two sentences in its entirety.

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘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,” he wrote.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/paul-13-hour-filibuster-word-reply-article-1.1282182#ixzz2Mt3OoNhT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want Barak Obama himself to stand up and explain in detail who gets to choose the murder targets, who decides the acceptable level of collateral damage and what criteria are used to decide who is an eligible target. This goes for all aspects of this unending war on terror.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

Chance of that happening? 0%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holder’s response on Thursday was two sentences in its entirety.

“It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘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,” he wrote.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/paul-13-hour-filibuster-word-reply-article-1.1282182#ixzz2Mt3OoNhT

 

What does "engaged in combat" actually mean?  These are vague terms that can be broadly defined, as we have already seen as drinking coffee seems to apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"just to protect their rights?"

A government that doesn't protect the rights of the citizen has no reason to exist.

I am amazed that anyone would so gladly surrender their rights. It seems to me that so many people in the past fought, bled, suffered and died to secure and protect those rights. I can't say "thank you" to them. They're dead. But I can damn well remember their sacrifice and hold the gift that they earned for me in the highest regard. I won't cast aside those rights to make it more expedient for some f*cking bureaucrat to sign a death order. If someone is suspected of breaking the law then they can be arrested, tried, maybe convicted and executed. Due process of law in a free country, not execution at the whim of a King or a group of democratically elected tyrants. 

 

Here's the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution in case they never taught that one in whatever Rockefeller Indoctrination Center known as public schools you may have attended:

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

I'm sorry, maybe this is just the military man in me speaking, but terrorists don't have rights. Domestic or foreign. When you start killing people and everybody knows it was you (Chris Dorner comes to mind), why put more peoples lives at risk? What about their right to LIVE? **** that, drone strike the asshole. That being said, a whole lot of guidelines would need to be put in place to not have ANY collateral damage. If there's ANY chance you're going to hurt an innocent person in the process you call it off. That simple.

 

I guess I'm the minority here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights cannot be "afforded".

If they were then they would be called privileges. Try to learn the difference.

Rights exist independent of any government or constitution. The Bill of Rights did not grant any Rights, it simply enumerated them.

We aren't subjects that need a higher power to "give" us rights. We are sovereign. We give some privileges to the government but they have no rights.

 

The Declaration of Independence speaks to these issues directly:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

 

Due process of law is a natural right and has been enumerated and protected by governments much older than ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights cannot be "afforded".

If they were then they would be called privileges. Try to learn the difference.

Rights exist independent of any government or constitution. The Bill of Rights did not grant any Rights, it simply enumerated them.

We aren't subjects that need a higher power to "give" us rights. We are sovereign. We give some privileges to the government but they have no rights.

 

The Declaration of Independence speaks to these issues directly:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

 

Due process of law is a natural right and has been enumerated and protected by governments much older than ours.

loI I'm quite familiar with the difference.

 

the right of due process is not specific to citizens. Thanks for the condescending reply though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...