Yeah I know you are really concerned about drones. But how do you feel about police helicopters, like the one that followed O.J. Simpson's Bronco around for an hour or two? And how about SWAT team snipers, like the ones who sometimes take down armed men in a hostage situation?
what I am saying is that state, local, and federal governments are already doing these things in armed vehicles and flying machines. The only difference is that the pilot for the drone is in a computer lab, not in the cockpit of the flying machine itself.
i am not particularly concerned about Federal use of drones in the USA. I do not visualize one dropping a hellfire missile on me- even if the President would happen to be of a different political party than myself. any President to do such a thing without sufficient evidence that the targeted person was a clear and immediate danger to US citizens would have serious problems staying in office.
if you think I am calling Rand Paul paranoid, well, okay. I guess I am.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 48
1 : a stingless male bee (as of the honeybee) that has the role of mating with the queen and does not gather nectar or pollen
2 : one that lives on the labors of others : parasite
3 : an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control
4 : drudge
He's most probably definition # 2 or 4--perhaps 1 as well
Make up whatever rules you like. They will be violated / ignored just like the rules concerning privacy. Just like the laws concerning fraud and organized crime and guns and ... Well, you get the idea.
If you just want to feel good because some rules exist feel free. If you actually want to prevent the abuses of this technology you have to examine the root causes of the need for law and the lack of both good law and effective enforcement. If something is a serious enough problem that you need laws about it then it isn't going away just because of the laws.
They express ideals, objectives, goals, desirable states. But if we wish to attain those ideals, if we wish to actually have the government which does not oppress, we must look beyond mere laws. We must look at what motivates human behavior that brings about the violations of such laws, such ideals, such noble sentiments.
I oppose any taking of life by the government without due process. That includes innocent bystanders killed by drones (among many, many other situations). I don't care whether the person being killed is a U.S. citizen or not. I don't care whether the person being killed is on U.S. soil (or embassy or ship at sea) or not.
I question whether the Rand Paul performance was an advance of any kind. I consider it political theater. I would like to have you change my mind on that point since I could use some good news.
I will be posting a new Striking at the Root article on this subject here at Gather, probably Thursday.
I hope I notice it. Will you be posting it to a group of which I am a member?
S@tR: The Paul Filibuster Highlights Extreme Executive Powers Claimed by Bush/Obama
Chris, and everyone else, you're invited as well.
The problem I have is, drones make things one-sided: the target risks life and limb, the remote operator risks . . . a piece of equipment. People who are williing to fight wars without risk to themselves are cowards.
I don't know, maybe this is a bit Victorian of me, but I find drones to be unsporting. You do have a concern though as well, there is a side of me that thinks it is a coward's way too.
An honest person would have asked an honest question. Paul didn't. He asked a hypothetical based on a paranoid view of the world, then beat the hypothetical as if it had meaning. It didn't.
We also have answers to hypothetical questions like "what do we do if Canada invades us?" and "if Montenegro drops a nuclear bomb on NYC, how do we respond?"
Paul asked a hypothetical question, then acted like the answer meant we were shooting Hellfire missiles at girl scouts in the streets. He should be ashamed for his intellectual dishonesty.
BTW, while his filibuster was designed for show, I support the fact that he got up and did an actual filibuster. But at the very same time he was doing that his colleagues were dishonestly doing yet another fake "filibuster-free filibuster" to block an up-or-down vote on yet another Obama judicial appointee. The Republican party has routinely held America hostage by using these filibuster threats to block honest voting on basic positions that need filling. They do this not because of anything wrong with these nominees, but purely as an act to hinder the ability of the Obama administration to do its job.
These patently dishonest actions of the Republican party are shameful and a dishonor to America.
"As Sen. Paul filibustered, Will Fitzgibbon wrote from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London: “Last month, we launched a new drones project: Naming the Dead. The aim of this project is to identify as many of the more than 2,500 victims of US drone strikes in Pakistan as possible. Given we currently do not know the identities of 80 percent of those killed, we believe this is a crucial and missing step to having a more transparent drones debate. ... With all the attention being recently paid to American citizens killed by drones and with the drone debate growing, we thought it would be a good time to remind ourselves of the individual human stories of drone victims. Those we know about and those we don’t.”
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. Sen. Paul’s outrage with the president’s claimed right to kill U.S. citizens is entirely appropriate. That there is not more outrage at the thousands killed around the globe is shameful ... and dangerous."
The question is serious. The President claims (and has exercised) the power of due process free assassination of American citizens overseas. Outrageous as this is, it is imperative to answer whether this power extends to US soil. Dismissing this as paranoia is unconscionable.
Or was this just your best effort to take a swipe at the republican of the week?
also, clearly, some Americans like Paul concerned about drones at home, but NOT abroad. others, concerned about drones abroad, but NOT at home.
can you imagine a US president giving the green light to dropping a hellfire missile on somebody on US soil who is not a key member of an Al Qaeda unfolding operation? As in, maybe a political opponent? it's not really imaginable to me. for one thing, the CIA wold not be a party to it, and for another, no President would give that order, knowing it would mean the end of his presidency.
if Rand Paul is concerned about this, maybe he should write a bill and bring it up for a vote?
Anyhow, it doesn't matter what we imagine. No one would have imagined the radical powers Bush and Obama have claimed just 15 years ago.
The point is, regardless of what we imagine, does the President claim the same power he does overseas, due process free assassination of American citizens? There is no need for legislation. We have the fifth amendment.
Seriously, Chris, I think such a law would be a good idea. Then maybe we could pass one banning drone-use abroad.
Why say something so silly, especially when that's exactly what he did?
Your comment is just silly. The President can barely get anything done because of the dysfunctional Congress. And worrying about drones in the streets is just paranoia at this point.
There are plenty of real issues to deal with. Too bad so many people have to distract from those real issues by fabricating fake straw men to beat down.
The real question to ask is why democrats were concerned about the powers Bush claimed ~10 years ago, but no longer show concern.
But I will provide some for my claim anyway: see here for starters, from popular left-wing source to boot.
Do you have an answer for the massive Democrat hypocrisy we have seen on civil liberties?
One additional point to be made is that while Rand Paul was not a public figure 10 years ago, his father was, and his record is available for all to see. Ron Paul was very consistent.
Better try coming up with another line of attack, or just admit the Paul's are right and work with people when you agree on an issue.