Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Staw man and conspiracy theory shit down? normal people never believed the assumptions behind crazy Rand questions

This could have been avoided if they had just answered it in the first place.

 

[Oldguy]

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.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.

Ok, fine. That part is settled.

How about one more question: Does the President have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil BY ANY OTHER MEANS?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.

Ok, fine. That part is settled.

How about one more question: Does the President have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil BY ANY OTHER MEANS?

Well they did seem to get caught up in drones specifically, despite the question being in regards to lethal force in general.

 

[Annie]

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.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.

Ok, fine. That part is settled.

How about one more question: Does the President have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil BY ANY OTHER MEANS?

and you would justify such a question how via the Constitution?

 

[Interpol]

Rand Paul and some of these teabagger clowns play us for fools. They hope we're stupid and that we don't read.

This filibuster was all about getting the conspiracy fringe and the birthers and the other assorted weirdos all riled up instead of actually questioning the general use of the drone program itself.

It's like I started out agreeing with Rand Paul until it all became this moronic pitch about "The President should not have the authority to drone an American while he's innocently at the coffee shop".

Ridiculous.

The baggers, birthers and other know-nothings go off the rails with their argument the minute you realize they live in a fantasy world where Obama is probably not Christian, probably not American, is a Communist/Socialist, wishes harm to America, and blah blah blah blah...

Major FAIL by Rand Paul on this one. Made himself look so ridiculous when the White House revealed that they had already answered his question with a very clear "No".

 

[Truthmatters]

so now you guys are mad that your mad has been had?

The Mad Hatter?

I say rand is more of a Mad Hater

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rand Paul and some of these teabagger clowns play us for fools. They hope we're stupid and that we don't read.

This filibuster was all about getting the conspiracy fringe and the birthers and the other assorted weirdos all riled up instead of actually questioning the general use of the drone program itself.

It's like I started out agreeing with Rand Paul until it all became this moronic pitch about "The President should not have the authority to drone an American while he's innocently at the coffee shop".

Ridiculous.

The baggers, birthers and other know-nothings go off the rails with their argument the minute you realize they live in a fantasy world where Obama is probably not Christian, probably not American, is a Communist/Socialist, wishes harm to America, and blah blah blah blah...

Major FAIL by Rand Paul on this one. Made himself look so ridiculous when the White House revealed that they had already answered his question with a very clear "No".

Actually they only just answered the question today, and judging from the support Rand has received over his filibuster it was not a "FAIL" at all.

But whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

so now you guys are mad that your mad has been had?

The Mad Hatter?

I say rand is more of a Mad Hater

More like the Cheshire Cat today. Grinning ear to ear.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Would have been nice if Obama would have consulted his AG before insisting he could use drones on US citizens on US soil

 

[Avatar4321]

Staw man and conspiracy theory shit down? normal people never believed the assumptions behind crazy Rand questions

So since you aren't normal, does that mean you did?

And there is nothing crazy about the questions. In fact, they are very good to know.

 

[Oldguy]

Document: Attorney General Eric Holder drone letter to Sen. Rand Paul - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Looks like a definitive answer to me, at last. However, this was not an additional question. This was the original question.

Ok, fine. That part is settled.

How about one more question: Does the President have the authority to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil BY ANY OTHER MEANS?

and you would justify such a question how via the Constitution?

Because the Constitutional protections for due process are not dependent upon the type of killing weapon which might be used against American citizens. If a President doesn't have the authority to kill someone with a drone, he shouldn't have the authority to have them killed by any other means either. Conversely, if he does have the authority, it doesn't matter how.

By focusing just on drones, the larger question goes unaddressed, which actually makes grandstanding by Paul easier and gives the administration a handy hiding place without materially affecting the President's presumed authority to ignore the Constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

so now you guys are mad that your mad has been had?

Please learn English. I sincerely want you to better yourself and learn how to communicate better. You could do so much better than you let yourself do. It's truly a shame.

 

[Truthmatters]

bite the back end of a mule

 

[Truthmatters]

Do cops have a right to kill someone suspected of a crime?

 

[SinJinsg]

I wonder it that'll be good enough for Rand. Seriously. Surely he'll find something else equally .... obvious.

So obvious that we had plenty of people on this board arguing that the answer was "obviously" yes?

Well the answer was obviously "no" all along. I suspect those who found it "not obvious" had agendas having nothing to do with that question.

In a sense Paul's a distraction, but at the same time not a lot of republicans or democrats are eager to challange Obama's exercise of executive power overseas vis a vis citizens and collateral damage to citizens and non-citizens. To the extent Paul furthered those questions, he did a service.

If the answer was "obviously no" all along then why didn't Holder just come out and say so? Remember, this is the same administration that murdered a 16 year old American citizen in Pakistan who was doing nothing more than eating lunch in a cafe.

 

[Avatar4321]

Rand Paul and some of these teabagger clowns play us for fools. They hope we're stupid and that we don't read.

This filibuster was all about getting the conspiracy fringe and the birthers and the other assorted weirdos all riled up instead of actually questioning the general use of the drone program itself.

It's like I started out agreeing with Rand Paul until it all became this moronic pitch about "The President should not have the authority to drone an American while he's innocently at the coffee shop".

Ridiculous.

The baggers, birthers and other know-nothings go off the rails with their argument the minute you realize they live in a fantasy world where Obama is probably not Christian, probably not American, is a Communist/Socialist, wishes harm to America, and blah blah blah blah...

Major FAIL by Rand Paul on this one. Made himself look so ridiculous when the White House revealed that they had already answered his question with a very clear "No".

Dont need to play you for a fool. You do that on your own.

Tell me, how is encouraging people to ask questions of our government in anyway demonstrating that we want people not to read and that we hope people are stupid? It's quite the opposite. We want people to think, learn, and we want the government to be open to the people. We are educating people to what's going on. Yet, for some reason you want us to be completely silent and not ask questions. How exactly do people learn if they don't ask questions?

and the White House only responded no after the fillibuster. Doesnt look like a fail at all. Looks like the fillibuster accomplished 1/2 of what it was supposed to. (The other half being the Senate resolution that Democrats opposed saying that the President did not have the power to target citizens in the US).

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do cops have a right to kill someone suspected of a crime?

Is this question relevant to anything?

 

[Avatar4321]

Do cops have a right to kill someone suspected of a crime?

Not unless the suspects endagering the officer's safety or the public's safety. Otherwise, we have trials for a reason.

 

[Defiant1]

So let me see if I have this straight:

A muslim person you have worked with for 3 years invites you to his wedding.
You will attend because you have no doubt even if the bride's cousin, who is a terrorist will be attending, there won't be a drone strike because you are there.

 

[SinJinsg]

Do cops have a right to kill someone suspected of a crime?

They most certainly DO NOT! And it is frightening that you would even ask that question.