Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
F3SS

Rand Paul filibustering

236 posts in this topic

So, offer a solution. Who IS qualified? You?

If you are a US citizen, a jury of your peers would be quailified.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By filibustering we now have an answer "AMERICANS cannot be killed by drones on American soil" By any President. So :tu: to Paul Rand.

Now we gotta address the spying on Americans. And get the predators out of DHS hands and LEO paws. They dont need them. Predators are killing machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A jury can't decide if something is imminent. Only that it was imminent if the person on trial survived to make it to trial. Otherwise, it must be up to the government to decide imminence as that would be something about to take place soon like within hours or minutes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A jury can't decide if something is imminent. Only that it was imminent if the person on trial survived to make it to trial. Otherwise, it must be up to the government to decide imminence as that would be something about to take place soon like within hours or minutes.

Wasnt DHS created to protect us from this imminent threat if its no longer needed disband the DHS and return the agencies it swallowed up back to their original missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasnt DHS created to protect us from this imminent threat if its no longer needed disband the DHS and return the agencies it swallowed up back to their original missions.

I don't know about all that right now but things can happen and lone wolfs can go from unknown to imminent threat out of nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An intelligence operation that went very wrong.

Every intelligence community in the ENTIRE WORLD has screwed-up from time-to-time.

Does that mean they can no longer be trusted? No, that's just silly.

This is not about trust, though the administration would like to reframe the question that way.

This is about the rule of law, in particular, the Supreme Law of this Land, the US Constitution.

Under that law there is NO authority for the President to summarily execute anybody, whether by stabbing with a knife or by drone missle.

Under that law, the taking of one's life requires DUE PROCESS. The President must follow the law, and the law does not empower him to do such things. Obama has attempted to usurp unlawful power. Tyrants and kings have been doing that over mankind's history.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A jury can't decide if something is imminent. Only that it was imminent if the person on trial survived to make it to trial. Otherwise, it must be up to the government to decide imminence as that would be something about to take place soon like within hours or minutes.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A jury can't decide if something is imminent. Only that it was imminent if the person on trial survived to make it to trial. Otherwise, it must be up to the government to decide imminence as that would be something about to take place soon like within hours or minutes.

A jury can decide if someone is innocnet or guilty. For American citizens, they are the only ones that can decide this. Not the government.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is not about trust, though the administration would like to reframe the question that way.

This is about the rule of law, in particular, the Supreme Law of this Land, the US Constitution.

Under that law there is NO authority for the President to summarily execute anybody, whether by stabbing with a knife or by drone missle.

Under that law, the taking of one's life requires DUE PROCESS. The President must follow the law, and the law does not empower him to do such things. Obama has attempted to usurp unlawful power. Tyrants and kings have been doing that over mankind's history.

So, if you happened to be a room with a terrorist ready to set-off a suicide bombing, nuke or chemical weapon or "dirty bomb", you would do NOTHING ????????????? because of "due process"

That is totally asinine.

Edited by pallidin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A jury can decide if someone is innocnet or guilty. For American citizens, they are the only ones that can decide this. Not the government.

Wrong. The government decides this. As well it should with respect to terrorism, not "simple domestic' matters.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A jury can decide if someone is innocnet or guilty. For American citizens, they are the only ones that can decide this. Not the government.

Wrong. The government decides this. As well it should.

Fix your quote. That is just a crazy statement at its face value Pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did fix it, previous to your comment.

Re-read my edited post #60.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A jury can decide if someone is innocnet or guilty. For American citizens, they are the only ones that can decide this. Not the government.

Yes, you know I know that. I'm simply talking about imminent threats that need dealt with immediately. Now, if the threat couldn't be eliminated and an attack was carried out and the criminal party survives they can't be killed. They are then to be captured and tried by a jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what makes me so mad about our political system. The only reason that Democrats are not up in arms over drone strikes is because Rand is a Republican and their party ( Obama & Holder ) are Democrats saying it's okay. Flip the rolls and they would be on the other side of the issue. ( IMO anyway ) Prime examples are The Patriot Act and Gitmo.

Last time I checked, the Patriot Act made it through the Senate with only a single dissenting vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea well talk is cheap and it's not in writing. The filibuster was an effort to obtain this in writing.

Because the Congressional Record is apparently not good enough.

Holder was held in contempt of Congress over fast and furious. But don't worry, clearly we should trust everything he says because he obviously cares about us so much.

If Congress doesn't trust Holder - then why's Rand Paul filibustering to get something from him in writing, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Congress doesn't trust Holder - then why's Rand Paul filibustering to get something from him in writing, exactly?

To get it on the record instead of letting them continue to weasel around the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't think this is a violation of Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3? It clearly says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Bill of Attainder: A "bill of attainder" is any act of a legislative body declaring a person or group of persons guilty of a crime and assessing a punishment without the benefit of trial.

Sure. That's exactly why during the civil war, not a single bullet was shot at an enemy soldier until they'd been tried by a jury of their peers.

Enemy Combatants. Different rules. True Story.

To get it on the record instead of letting them continue to weasel around the subject.

It was already on the Congressional Record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that first the FAA grounded all flights. Therefore any planes still flying were in violation of the grounding order, which is against the law. So they would actually be in violation of the law, not potentially in violation of the law. Big difference to me.

Well, you can check, but I think you'll find that conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism is also in direct violation of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was already on the Congressional Record.

Link please. Why did Holder break the filibuster by making the first official policy statement regarding the use of drones to kill Americans on US soil. If it was already there the filibuster would still be on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Link please. Why did Holder break the filibuster by making the first official policy statement regarding the use of drones to kill Americans on US soil. If it was already there the filibuster would still be on.

Here's the video from the Judiciary Committee hearing prior to the filibuster grandstanding.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the timestamps to the best I can discern these 2 events occured at the same time. Yesterday. Thank You Tiggs.

I still think Holders a weasel. He sure didnt want to say it was Unconstitutional to kill am American citizen on US soil with a drone attack. But when forced to he did finally admit to it. But testimony as we well know is only worth the mouth it comes out of and I expect this to be legislated with severe limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

By the timestamps to the best I can discern these 2 events occured at the same time. Yesterday. Thank You Tiggs.

The statement was made, as per the video, at 10:40 Eastern. Rand's filibuster kicked off at 11:47 Eastern.

I still think Holders a weasel. He sure didnt want to say it was Unconstitutional to kill am American citizen on US soil with a drone attack. But when forced to he did finally admit to it.

Is that what you saw?

What I saw was someone who believes that the word "Constitutional" is included and implied by the word "Appropriate".

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea well it looks like not everyone sees eye to eye in this world. When you write laws that affect the lives of 310 million people you'd better provide detailed answers when asked.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I saw was someone who believes that the word "Constitutional" is included and implied by the word "Appropriate".

I disagree. I see the word appropriate being used to circumvent the Constitutionality of it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea well it looks like not everyone sees eye to eye in this world. When you write laws that affect the lives of 310 million people you'd better provide detailed answers when asked.

Then people should probably stop insisting on one word answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.