Dems Reject Resolution Stating President Cannot Kill Americans At Home W/O Due Proces

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The next time so called "liberal" or regressive tells you how much they value civil rights remind them how completely full of shit they are.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Wednesday evening offered to end his filibuster on the nomination of John Brennan to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

About seven hours into his talking filibuster, Paul asked unanimous consent that the Senate hold an up-or-down vote on Brennan on Thursday. But he also wanted a vote on a resolution that would have expressed the sense of the Senate that use of drones to target American citizens clearly violates the rights of U.S. citizens. The resolution also asks President Obama to give Congress a report on the drone program.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected the Paul’s offer.

“I’m disappointed that the Democrats chose not to vote on this,” Paul said. “This is a nonbinding resolution.”

Durbin said he’s chairing a hearing soon on drones and that the resolution should be considered after that hearing.

“I invite my colleagues to join us if he wants to testify,” Durbin said. “But I believe it’s premature to schedule a vote on this issue now.”

Dems reject Paul's offer to end filibuster - The Hill's Floor Action

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

This is who is running your country folks. Open your fucking eyes.

 

[Obamanation]

The next time so called "liberal" or regressive tells you how much they value civil rights remind them how completely full of shit they are.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Wednesday evening offered to end his filibuster on the nomination of John Brennan to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

About seven hours into his talking filibuster, Paul asked unanimous consent that the Senate hold an up-or-down vote on Brennan on Thursday. But he also wanted a vote on a resolution that would have expressed the sense of the Senate that use of drones to target American citizens clearly violates the rights of U.S. citizens. The resolution also asks President Obama to give Congress a report on the drone program.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected the Paul’s offer.

“I’m disappointed that the Democrats chose not to vote on this,” Paul said. “This is a nonbinding resolution.”

Durbin said he’s chairing a hearing soon on drones and that the resolution should be considered after that hearing.

“I invite my colleagues to join us if he wants to testify,” Durbin said. “But I believe it’s premature to schedule a vote on this issue now.”

Dems reject Paul's offer to end filibuster - The Hill's Floor Action

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

This is who is running your country folks. Open your fucking eyes.

Yeah, and he has an early tee time tomorrow. Don't expect him to LEAD or even weigh in on this.... Like Benghazi, he's already gone to bed!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The next time so called "liberal" or regressive tells you how much they value civil rights remind them how completely full of shit they are.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Wednesday evening offered to end his filibuster on the nomination of John Brennan to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

About seven hours into his talking filibuster, Paul asked unanimous consent that the Senate hold an up-or-down vote on Brennan on Thursday. But he also wanted a vote on a resolution that would have expressed the sense of the Senate that use of drones to target American citizens clearly violates the rights of U.S. citizens. The resolution also asks President Obama to give Congress a report on the drone program.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected the Paul’s offer.

“I’m disappointed that the Democrats chose not to vote on this,” Paul said. “This is a nonbinding resolution.”

Durbin said he’s chairing a hearing soon on drones and that the resolution should be considered after that hearing.

“I invite my colleagues to join us if he wants to testify,” Durbin said. “But I believe it’s premature to schedule a vote on this issue now.”

Dems reject Paul's offer to end filibuster - The Hill's Floor Action

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

This is who is running your country folks. Open your fucking eyes.

Both sides are playing politics. It's doesn't mean anything anyway.

The Dems won't vote on it now because it'd be a win for Rand Paul's ridiculous filibuster.

 

[g5000]

Yes, we should all do what the demagogue Paul wants, right when he wants to do it, or he will hold his breath until he turns blue and stamp his little feet. Screw any other legislation that is of actual importance that is in the pipeline.

I guess some people believe standing in line and waiting your turn should only apply to immigrants.

 

[Obamanation]

No doubt, we would hate to see anyone stand up to the anti-constitutionalist in chief!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Another Nobel Peace Prize coming!

 

[g5000]

Rand Paul is asking for an exception to be made just for him.

It isn't like the President has been drone bombing the shit out of America for the past four years and we need this emergency non-binding feel good piece of demagoguery passed immediately or else the Constitution might burst into flames.

It can wait.

That is all Durbin said. It can wait.

So, once again, another lie is manufactured. The Democrats did not reject the resolution. They told Paul to wait until the appropriate time AFTER A HEARING ON DRONES. Gosh! You mean we should wait until we are better informed about drones and their possible uses? How preposterous, sir!

What a whiny little dipshit this guy has turned out to be.

 

[g5000]

I can just hear Paul and Cruz now.

"Will you unequivocally state that killing a child eating a lollipop in a canoe with a drone is unconstitutional?"

"Will you tell us if blowing up a circus big top with a drone without due process is unconstitutional?"

"There's a speeder traveling down I-95. Is it constitutional to blow him up with a drone, sir?"

"I demand a resolution be passed immediately banning the use of drones to spy through my bathroom window or I will not shut up!"

His fawning fans will just swoon! Look at that Rand Paul asking the tough questions!

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Yes, we should all do what the demagogue Paul wants, right when he wants to do it, or he will hold his breath until he turns blue and stamp his little feet. Screw any other legislation that is of actual importance that is in the pipeline.

I guess some people believe standing in line and waiting your turn should only apply to immigrants.

Well, sure, Obama's the president so he can kill anybody he wants. If those damned rednecks don't like it, that's just too damned bad.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

Is it a bill to make it illegal for the President to execute Americans w/o dp, or a bill to make it illegal for him to kill them?

Because last time I checked, folks who take up arms against the U.S. have these two rights:

1) Right to surrender and be treated as a POW according to our laws and those international laws our nation has agreed to follow.
2) Right to be killed by the U.S. military or any citizen taking up arms in defense of the nation.

Am I missing something? Since when does the President not have the right - in fact - the DUTY - to use deadly force against those who take up arms against the U.S. - whether they are citizens or not?

Did George Washington have to try and convict every single rebel he killed when he put down the Whisky Rebellion?

What about that Republican President Lincoln? Did he try and convict the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers he had massacred?



You do realize that if we pass a law making it illegal for the President to kill someone without due process without exception - it would actually make it illegal for the President to defend his own life with deadly force - unless he obtained a conviction first?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

Is it a bill to make it illegal for the President to execute Americans w/o dp, or a bill to make it illegal for him to kill them?

Because last time I checked, folks who take up arms against the U.S. have these two rights:

1) Right to surrender and be treated as a POW according to our laws and those international laws our nation has agreed to follow.
2) Right to be killed by the U.S. military or any citizen taking up arms in defense of the nation.

Am I missing something? Since when does the President not have the right - in fact - the DUTY - to use deadly force against those who take up arms against the U.S. - whether they are citizens or not?

Did George Washington have to try and convict every single rebel he killed when he put down the Whisky Rebellion?

What about that Republican President Lincoln? Did he try and convict the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers he had massacred?



You do realize that if we pass a law making it illegal for the President to kill someone without due process without exception - it would actually make it illegal for the President to defend his own life with deadly force - unless he obtained a conviction first?

Yes, you're missing something. It's not the president's right to kill anyone he pleases without due process.

That's what you're missing.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I can just hear Paul and Cruz now.

"Will you unequivocally state that killing a child eating a lollipop in a canoe with a drone is unconstitutional?"

"Will you tell us if blowing up a circus big top with a drone without due process is unconstitutional?"

"There's a speeder traveling down I-95. Is it constitutional to blow him up with a drone, sir?"

"I demand a resolution be passed immediately banning the use of drones to spy through my bathroom window or I will not shut up!"

His fawning fans will just swoon! Look at that Rand Paul asking the tough questions!

Will you tell us when you took up idiocy? Does it come naturally to you or do you work diligently at it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The next time so called "liberal" or regressive tells you how much they value civil rights remind them how completely full of shit they are.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Wednesday evening offered to end his filibuster on the nomination of John Brennan to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

About seven hours into his talking filibuster, Paul asked unanimous consent that the Senate hold an up-or-down vote on Brennan on Thursday. But he also wanted a vote on a resolution that would have expressed the sense of the Senate that use of drones to target American citizens clearly violates the rights of U.S. citizens. The resolution also asks President Obama to give Congress a report on the drone program.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected the Paul’s offer.

“I’m disappointed that the Democrats chose not to vote on this,” Paul said. “This is a nonbinding resolution.”

Durbin said he’s chairing a hearing soon on drones and that the resolution should be considered after that hearing.

“I invite my colleagues to join us if he wants to testify,” Durbin said. “But I believe it’s premature to schedule a vote on this issue now.”

Dems reject Paul's offer to end filibuster - The Hill's Floor Action

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

This is who is running your country folks. Open your fucking eyes.

Is deadly force ever permissible?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The next time so called "liberal" or regressive tells you how much they value civil rights remind them how completely full of shit they are.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) Wednesday evening offered to end his filibuster on the nomination of John Brennan to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

About seven hours into his talking filibuster, Paul asked unanimous consent that the Senate hold an up-or-down vote on Brennan on Thursday. But he also wanted a vote on a resolution that would have expressed the sense of the Senate that use of drones to target American citizens clearly violates the rights of U.S. citizens. The resolution also asks President Obama to give Congress a report on the drone program.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected the Paul’s offer.

“I’m disappointed that the Democrats chose not to vote on this,” Paul said. “This is a nonbinding resolution.”

Durbin said he’s chairing a hearing soon on drones and that the resolution should be considered after that hearing.

“I invite my colleagues to join us if he wants to testify,” Durbin said. “But I believe it’s premature to schedule a vote on this issue now.”

Dems reject Paul's offer to end filibuster - The Hill's Floor Action

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

This is who is running your country folks. Open your fucking eyes.

Would a law making it illegal for the President to kill an American citizen without due process - without exception - make it illegal for the President to kill an American citizen - or to have killed an American citizen - in his own self-defense?

Yes, it would.

You fucking right-wingers are horrible horrible law writers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really? It's premature to affirm that the POTUS has no right to order the execution of an American citizen on American soil without their right to Due Process?

Is it a bill to make it illegal for the President to execute Americans w/o dp, or a bill to make it illegal for him to kill them?

Because last time I checked, folks who take up arms against the U.S. have these two rights:

1) Right to surrender and be treated as a POW according to our laws and those international laws our nation has agreed to follow.
2) Right to be killed by the U.S. military or any citizen taking up arms in defense of the nation.

Am I missing something? Since when does the President not have the right - in fact - the DUTY - to use deadly force against those who take up arms against the U.S. - whether they are citizens or not?

Did George Washington have to try and convict every single rebel he killed when he put down the Whisky Rebellion?

What about that Republican President Lincoln? Did he try and convict the hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers he had massacred?



You do realize that if we pass a law making it illegal for the President to kill someone without due process without exception - it would actually make it illegal for the President to defend his own life with deadly force - unless he obtained a conviction first?

Yes, you're missing something. It's not the president's right to kill anyone he pleases without due process.

That's what you're missing.

What you're missing is that the president is not claiming that right. This is all nothing more than a colossal straw man invented by the anti-government extremist wing of the rightwing.

 

[S.J.]

I'm amused by all the boot-licking liberals on here making excuses for executing Americans without due process. What a bunch of fucking sheep. Hitler would be proud.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm amused by all the boot-licking liberals on here making excuses for executing Americans without due process. What a bunch of fucking sheep. Hitler would be proud.

Only people like Timothy McVeigh have the right to execute Americans without do process. He has a Constitutional right never to be droned out.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm amused by all the boot-licking liberals on here making excuses for executing Americans without due process. What a bunch of fucking sheep. Hitler would be proud.

Only people like Timothy McVeigh have the right to execute Americans without do process. He has a Constitutional right never to be droned out.

I was hoping the ridiculous and foolish posts were over for the day. I should have expected you to dash that hope.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Hell I thought this was the one thing the President was getting right. Honestly, I dont feel endager of a drone flying through my window and cementing my name on ol' peter's list, but you know who should worry about that? Any American citizen who thinks Al-queda has some good ideas. I'd go as far as to say I feel safer that POTUS and the fine gents over there at the airforce are doing their best to ensure any and that means ANY terrorist gets the due process of a missle comin through their door with a few tons of force.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hell I thought this was the one thing the President was getting right. Honestly, I dont feel endager of a drone flying through my window and cementing my name on ol' peter's list, but you know who should worry about that? Any American citizen who thinks Al-queda has some good ideas. I'd go as far as to say I feel safer that POTUS and the fine gents over there at the airforce are doing their best to ensure any and that means ANY terrorist gets the due process of a missle comin through their door with a few tons of force.

And what happens when you get labeled a terrorist for opposing the President on other matters?