Rand Paul lies about his filibuster

[Luddly Neddite]

FactCheck.org : Rand Paul Exaggerates His Filibuster ?Victory?

Sen. Rand Paul says it “took 13 hours of filibuster” to finally force the Obama administration “to say, no, we won’t kill noncombatants in America.” In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder said “no” at a Senate hearing shortly before Paul began his filibuster.

Another congenital rw liar.

The guano doesn't fall far from the bat.

 

[Katzndogz]

Eric Holder didn't say no, before the filibuster. He said "It would not be appropriate". Try your democrat lies someplace else.

 

[editec]

Media whoring.

 

[Avorysuds]

Eric Holder didn't say no, before the filibuster. He said "It would not be appropriate". Try your democrat lies someplace else.

Well I'd like to see a link either way but if your right, that makes the OP a liar. I wonder if that means anything to him anymore.

 

[Avorysuds]

Media whoring.

Who is? The politicians whose job it is to make issues public?

 

[Avorysuds]

Ok I read the transcripts and Rand's question was different. Cruz's question was:

Cruz: The person is suspected to be a terrorist. You have abundant evidence he’s a terrorist. He’s involved in terrorist plots, but at the moment –

Holder: OK, I see.

Cruz: — he’s not pointing a bazooka at the Pentagon. He is sitting in a cafe. Overseas the United States government uses drones to take out individuals when they are walking down a pathway, when they’re sitting at a cafe. If a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the Constitution allow a drone to kill that citizen?

Holders answers were:

1)Holder: A person who is not engaged, as you describe — and this is the problem with hypotheticals. The way in which you have described this person sitting at the cafe not doing anything imminently, the use of lethal force would not be appropriate, would not be something –

2) "No"


So he said "not appropriate" to a single hypothetical situation, leading an intelligent person to ask, what would be the appropriate scenario that the US Government can kill a US citizen on US soil. What if there person were taking a tour of the White house, not sitting in a cafe`, and they were suspected of terrorism? Would its then be appropriate?

Rands question if I remember correctly was something like, "Does the US government have the right to kill US citizens without trail under the NDAA." Currently the answer seems to be "Yes." Just the President has to deem that person a threat, and without trial who will ever know if the Presidents decision was correct.

That is the problem with dictatorship like powers.

 

[whitehall]

What the hell. The left has to quibble about the length of time of Rand's filibuster instead of the content? If it wasn't for the tax exempt Media Matters propaganda network the left would be stumbling around in the darkness.

 

[mamooth]

Eric Holder didn't say no, before the filibuster. He said "It would not be appropriate". Try your democrat lies someplace else.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

"the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat."

That's a clear and unambiguous "no, we won't kill noncombatants in America".

I'd normally just assume a mistake due to ignorance, but Katz forfeited any right to such a courtesy when he instantly declared everyone on the other side was a liar. Therefore, using his own standards, we can confidently state Katz is a liar.

Holder was incorrect when later saying it's actually illegal, as the 2001 AUMF says the president can do damn well whatever he pleases anywhere he pleases, so long as he ties it to Al Qaeda type groups. The president has that power because Congress specifically voted to give him that power. If Congress has a problem with that, they should update the AUMF with new legislation, and I'd like to see them do that. DearLeaderPaul could even take lead on that. But that would assume he actually gave a damn, and wasn't just posturing for fundraising purposes.

 

[peach174]

FactCheck.org : Rand Paul Exaggerates His Filibuster ?Victory?

Sen. Rand Paul says it “took 13 hours of filibuster” to finally force the Obama administration “to say, no, we won’t kill noncombatants in America.” In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder said “no” at a Senate hearing shortly before Paul began his filibuster.

Another congenital rw liar.

The guano doesn't fall far from the bat.

No
What Holder said at the Senate hearing was that it's a possibility.

"It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,"