Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So... how did YOU become a Rand Paul follower? [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)5. This thread needs
Rand.
Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'
By Steve Benen
In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.
The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.
Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:
I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.
But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand
By Steve Benen
In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.
The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.
Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:
"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.
But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand
Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
152 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The same day I read the Fourth Amendment and coincidentally joined the KKK! n/t
backscatter712
Jun 2013
#1
DU should make it more formal. Before being allowd to post an OP one must be asked this
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#19
Someone called me a racist? Who? Give me a name and I'll kick that person's ass.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#28
An attempt to deflate the observations as to all the new Libertarians on the site
flamingdem
Jun 2013
#27
Accessing your address from the NSA now. Libertarian to delivered in the next 28-45 business days
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#78
do you have any libertarians in size S, im not sure there is space next to the commies
Monkie
Jun 2013
#140
Name them then. Who are these 'Paulbots' on the site? Is there a list we can look at?
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#80
Anyone opposing goverment surveillence is a Rand supporter...or a racist....
HooptieWagon
Jun 2013
#126
There is. It was a poll. I see no reason to make a big deal about it, but you can if you want:
ucrdem
Jun 2013
#135
Apparently, by posting on DU. One morning I woke up and a dozen or so DUers
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#8
My doctor suggested I buy some of his urine so I could sprinkle it on myself and cure my cancer.
galileoreloaded
Jun 2013
#10
The only Rand Paul followers on DU are the strawmen invented by the Bush Obama Group.
HooptieWagon
Jun 2013
#14
They cheerlead Obama continuing Bush policy, and appointing GOP to adiministration.
HooptieWagon
Jun 2013
#30
I'm much more concerned about all the Republicans Obama is placing back in power in his cabinet
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#108
Support for Republicans, support for Paul, same topic as far as I am concerned. Is it okay
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#116
about the same time I became a racist. it was BOGO, so I said, y'know, what the hey...
KG
Jun 2013
#15
Lol, there's an old Irish saying: 'You may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb'!
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#119
At first I only followed once and great while. You know, like after a hard day.
ZombieHorde
Jun 2013
#39
Well, Rand Paul and I believe in the Pythagorean theorem, ergo I am a Rand Paul follower
jsr
Jun 2013
#43
It was when someone told me that Paul agrees with Al Franken on something, and I realized
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#120
Up next,"I became a troll for the Russians & the Chinese when I supported the 1st & 4th Amendments."
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#54
I disagreed with the administration's prosecution of medical marijuana patients.
liberal_at_heart
Jun 2013
#61
I met him on an alien spacecraft, he had been abducted earlier in the evening...
Safetykitten
Jun 2013
#62
We were dancing naked on the fire station roof, bong-toking, grilling weiners, and tossing M-80s
struggle4progress
Jun 2013
#77
I become aware of all the dog shit in my yard on a daily basis so I don't step in it.
Lint Head
Jun 2013
#102
Some people think that when they say something no one will respond, that is the end of the
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#118
I got slandered and libeled by DU police state apologists. I said I liked Les Paul,
Zorra
Jun 2013
#122
How the hell did you confuse the rather svelte 1984 with 1000+ page Atlas Shrugged?
Systematic Chaos
Jun 2013
#137
I follow RP because I'm concerned wars are seeded by uncontrolled private/SECRET assault weapons
patrice
Jun 2013
#134
Better make more space on your wall, because you're going to fall in love with Alex Jones
sabrina 1
Jun 2013
#147