Rand Paul Starts New Drone War In Congress 272
SonicSpike (242293) writes with news that the ACLU and Rand Paul both think every Senator should read David Barron's legal memos justifying the use of drones against an American citizen before he is confirmed to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. From the article: "Paul, the junior Republican senator from Kentucky, has informed Reid he will object to David Barron's nomination to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals unless the Justice Department makes public the memos he authored justifying the killing of an American citizen in Yemen. The American Civil Liberties Union supports Paul's objection, giving some Democratic lawmakers extra incentive to support a delay to Barron's nomination, which could come to the floor in the next two weeks. Barron, formerly a lawyer in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, penned at least one secret legal memo approving the Sept. 2011 drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric whom intelligence officials accused of planning terrorist attacks against the United States."
citizenship is irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
The way drones are currently employed in extrajudicial killing (a.k.a. murder), typically inside sovereign nations not at war with the US, is just as illegal when it targets US citizen as it is when it targets anybody else.
Not to mention the vast majority of drone victims who are not even suspected of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is a pretty reliable method of creating new terrorists.
Re:citizenship is irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard to keep the war going without terrorists. Sounds like the plan is working well.
Re: (Score:3)
International Law, the thing that only applies to you if you are not American.
Re: (Score:2)
International Law, the thing that only applies to you if you are not American.
And the thing that the US Government ignores when it doesn't agree with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Farm machinery runs on diesel, and diesel can be made from vegetable oil. It turns out that we also grow a giga-shitload of soybeans and canola.
Re: (Score:2)
You must not be american or you could not even utter such an obvious non-sense. Citizenship is the only thing that matters. It is the only thing that could potentially sway the Congress, any other consideration is irrelevant.
Is this state of affairs amoral? Yes. Should it be as you say? Yes. But it isn't and wishing so won't make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
You must not be american or you could not even utter such an obvious non-sense.
Because not only are Americans the only ones capable of making sense, they are also unable to utter non-sense?
Is this state of affairs amoral? Yes. Should it be as you say? Yes. But it isn't and wishing so won't make it so.
So.. You basically agree but believe it should not be pointed out? I am honestly not sure what your point is.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, it absolutely should be pointed out. Everything possible should be done about bringing light to drone strikes and every attempt made at ending it.
You should not be naive though, about what and how can end it. US government is the only one who can end the program. Saying it is amoral does not matter to US government. Saying it creates more terrorists does not matter to the US government. Collateral damage does not matter to the US government. The only thing that could potentially matter to them is the US
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it absolutely should be pointed out. Everything possible should be done about bringing light to drone strikes and every attempt made at ending it.
You should not be naive though, about what and how can end it. US government is the only one who can end the program. Saying it is amoral does not matter to US government. Saying it creates more terrorists does not matter to the US government. Collateral damage does not matter to the US government. The only thing that could potentially matter to them is the US citizenship. Everything else falls into the totally justifiable grey area.
They understand blowback. See also: Snowden. It has become more costly to do business as an American company since the leaks. What the US government understands is US "interests", meaning mainly the interests of US corporations. In the near term, through the courts, citizenship and the circumvention of due process can make some difference, but long term what matters is the cost/benefit to the machine.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think he's just referring to the 920,149,600 acres of farmland [farmlandinfo.org] actively being cultivated in the United States.
For reference, that's a bit over 3 acres per person measured in the same year. This guy [farmlandlp.com] says that it only takes about 1 acre to feed a person per year, meaning that we'd still have 2 acres left per person for creation of diesel fuel (rape seed, canola oil, soybean oil, etc.) to power the farming implements.
Does this capture the whole story? Absolutely not. However, without having a 1930s st
Re: (Score:2)
Being one of the People of the United States is important, being a Citizen of the United States has fewer perks. Need to read the fine print.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to our Supreme Court, the meaning of the word "People" has become, shall we say, somewhat fungible.
Re: (Score:2)
That won't happen. When it starts happening the US military will go in and sort out the place no matter where that is. That is how the tyranny of superior military power works. US is the world policeman, welcome to the police world. :D
Re: (Score:3)
That won't happen. When it starts happening the US military will go in and sort out the place no matter where that is
You mean you'd do what you are telling Putin he should not do in Ukraine?
Re: (Score:2)
That won't happen. When it starts happening the US military will go in and sort out the place no matter where that is
You mean you'd do what you are telling Putin he should not do in Ukraine?
You mean we'd do what we did in Kosovo in 1999? Crimea was *totally* different. For one, it's spelled with a C instead of a K...
Re:citizenship is irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For one, it's spelled with a C instead of a K...
Yes, the letters. Also, in Kosovo there were years of attempted diplomatic solutions, a UN resolution, and several NATO warnings to de-escalate before any military intervention.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is that the US really doesn't have a leg to stand on to criticize Russia for meddling in Crimea. We really have no moral authority: we recognized Panamanian independence from Columbia because the rebels told us we could build the Panama Canal when Columbia hadn't been cooperating, we toppled the democratically-elected government of Guatemala in order to protect our strategic Chiquita banana supply (*cough*), Vietnam, regime change in Iraq, etc.
The Kosovo issue is somewhat ironic because we
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because that would definitely be the first case of "do as I say, not as I do" that the US Government would be responsible for.
Re: (Score:2)
The US relinquished control of Iraq and Afghanistan after the war. Russia doesn't do this.
You must be American, cause this level of ignorance is rarely seen elsewhere. You probably are completely unaware of the Afghan wars before this one, and how the Soviet Union withdrew completely from Afghanistan in 1989, relinquishing control.
And even signing a paper with the US promising that neither would in any way interfere or intervene in Afghanistan. Which the US promptly disregarded, supplying weapons and training to those who later used it against them.
Re: (Score:3)
Add to that the fact that the GP is apparently unaware that we are still in Afghanistan. Or that Iraq ending was more about Obama's failure to extend it by getting an extension to the Status of Forces Agreement than anything else.
Re: (Score:3)
I blame those who give the orders and those who carry out the orders. And I especially despise the wimps in our Chair Force for risking nothing more than a fender bender in doing their evil deeds.
That said, although I didn't vote for Obama either time, if you can't admit that he suckered all the people wanting
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you heard the pen is mightyer than the sword. Obama knows he just has to write enough words abd get others to do the same in order to get putin to stop. And if it doesn't look likeit is working, he will just stab him in the eye with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least it would have been more entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
You can kill people without a proper trial all you want, but if you think that it can come without consequences you are delusional.
A majority of the US population are delusional [pewforum.org].
Re: (Score:2)
And you likely are American, as you don't even respect your own country enough to learn proper spelling and grammar of your own language.
Why would I respect my country? I respect ideals. Ideals that we are not even trying to live up to.
Pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes is just trivial nonsense, though irrational people like to pretend they're perfect, and that these mistakes indicate that some deeper problem exists.
Re: (Score:2)
typically inside sovereign nations not at war with the US
In the case of Yemen, it's with the permission, and sometimes the assistance, of the host government, which doesn't control that area where the drones are used. In Pakistan there appears to be at least tacit permission. In Afghanistan, well, there's a war on.
In all cases, the law in the US (AUMF and others) allows it.
Re:citizenship is irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)
typically inside sovereign nations not at war with the US In the case of Yemen, it's with the permission, and sometimes the assistance, of the host government, which doesn't control that area where the drones are used. In Pakistan there appears to be at least tacit permission. In Afghanistan, well, there's a war on.
In all cases, the law in the US (AUMF and others) allows it.
Claiming lawful action under German or puppet regime law didn't help the nazis, they got hung anyway. The US set the precedent on this one pretty solid.
Re: (Score:2)
Just ou of curiosity, how is using a drone to attack an individual target somehow illegal, where carpet-bombing with a B-52 is not illegal? Or is your contention that any use of force against al-Qaeda illegal?
Re: (Score:3)
Just ou of curiosity, how is using a drone to attack an individual target somehow illegal, where carpet-bombing with a B-52 is not illegal? Or is your contention that any use of force against al-Qaeda illegal?
Whats it again with the legality? What the Nazis did was perfectly legal under German law at the time - They were killed for what they did anyway.
If the target is actually an hostile combatant, then sure whatever, drop an anvil on the guy. But if you double tap a completely unrelated wedding party and then the rescuers, how is what US doing any different from what the Nazis and the Soviets were doing? If you willingly murder defenseless civilians and claim legal right to kill enemies of the state per law
Re:citizenship is irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
The way drones are currently employed in extrajudicial killing (a.k.a. murder), typically inside sovereign nations not at war with the US, is just as illegal when it targets US citizen as it is when it targets anybody else.
Not to mention the vast majority of drone victims who are not even suspected of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is a pretty reliable method of creating new terrorists.
Well, I don't want to defend the drone war. I don't think we should be involved in this at all. But to call this anything but war is a disservice to everyone involved. This is what war looks like. It IS murder. You can't be on an offensive military footing and not commit murder. Remember the children killed by hellfire missiles while attending a funeral the next time your congressman starts talking about defending this country. We voted to allow this. We've voted for Republicans and Democrats time and time again. They will keep doing this until we either throw them out of office or we make it clear they can't win elections anymore if they keep using war as a pretext to scare us into voting for them.
This is our fault. We need to take responsibility and stop blaming our inability to vote outside party lines on some mythical 1% or military industrial complex. If you don't like war, stop voting for the party of war. It's the one with D or R after the names on the ballot.
Re: (Score:2)
We did not vote for this. Not one of the executive branch lawyers who write legal justifications for this is elected. If it has congressional oversight in any capacity, only a handful of congress ate on the super secret committees that are marginally briefed. The judicial branch is not elected.
This is how a representative domocracy works, voting for someone who sounds the most like you and trusting they will do what they say. Especially since they campaign on things they can't change, like the president on
Re:citizenship is irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh, I've been voting for non-interventionist Libertarians since I could vote. And every time I get mocked every time because "a third party candidate can't win". Well no shit.
I'd love to see the Libertarians, the Greens, hell even the Socialist Party start to see more representation in government. At least we'd loosen the stranglehold those scumbag Ds and Rs have.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a pretty reliable method of creating new terrorists.
Don't know if you're an ignorant American or an EU pacifist, but we tried doing nothing before (see Jimmy Carter presidency). Didn't work so well. In fact it made the terrorists even more emboldened because they knew that nobody would ever come to get them. At least this way people know that they may have to pay for fighting America.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a pretty reliable method of creating new terrorists.
Don't know if you're an ignorant American or an EU pacifist, but we tried doing nothing before (see Jimmy Carter presidency).
Oh, well, gee Wally, I didn't realize that we only had 2 options here - killing large numbers of innocents in order to "get" one guy, or doing nothing. How silly of me to think there might be something else that can be done that doesn't involve murdering children and turning them against us.
Re: (Score:3)
Jimmy Carter was amazing. The problem wasn't Carfter. It's You. We will always be at war as long as people like you are around. Look at us. Osama Bin Laden WON. He didn't pay for shit. He got exactly what he wanted. We went crazy, invaded two countries, clamped down on our own citizens, and spent a small mountain of money for nothing. To boot, we're LOSING in Afghanistan. We've accomplished NOTHING over there.
Oh yeah, we showed them.... Meanwhile, you pooh pooh one of the most honest presidents we've ever
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. They specifically cite "Radical Muslims" who are also "Suspected Terrorists". These groups are separate.
I don't believe in the hands of many attorneys deciding that the minimal evidence of a person's connection to a crime or strategic threat is valid justification for bombing. Innocents die in these drone attacks: the average casualty is 50 men, many simply "militants", with the definition of "militant" being "a person over 18".
Re: (Score:2)
Watch this:
Butchersong fucks his mother every Saturday afternoon.
Because I'm a random person on the net, this is a troll. Now replace me with any of the self-interested power hungry psychopaths comprising the Federal government. Now it is "truth."
When you fall for the notion that the attorneys of one side coming to a conclusion is evidence, you have lost touch with what it means to be an American, except in t
Re: (Score:2)
Wars cannot be declared (in the congressional, send in the Marines way) against an entity which is not a sovereign nation. Congress can authorize "use of force" but can't declare "war". We didn't declare war on Afghanistan, we authorized the military to "use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups."
The vast majority of casualties in most wars are "not even suspected o
drones = piloted craft...you = dishonest argument (Score:2)
These are missiles fired from aircraft.
Whether the pilot is in a cubicle in Arizona or in the cockpit of the aircraft is absolutely immaterial.
We kill terrorists. We cant (rationally ahem: 'war on drugs') declare war against something unless it is a civil body politic with a government.
No one, except true pacifists, is always against the US killing terrorists...so that means it's a question of *when* to use lethal force
In all military action there is a threat of collateral killing.
Nothing new to see here...
Re: (Score:2)
The AUMF makes it legal.
Re: (Score:2)
If radical Canadians had flown a plane into one of our buildings, we would have expressed our displeasure to the Canadian government, done a joint operation, and WACO'ed the shit out of them. We would not have invaded Canada.
If radical Canadians had set up a training facility in Mexico and flown a plane into one of our buildings, we would have worked with the Mexican government, done a joint operation, and WACO'ed the shit out of them. We would not have invaded Mexico OR Canada.
Why did we invade a count
Race (Score:2)
It's not the "war on terrorism" anymore.
Instead, it is the "race against terrorism"
(to be the first to use drones against an American citizen.)
Wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute... did a senator just object to a judicial nomination for an actually valid reason?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I think it might be more accurate to say that he *gave* a valid reason, but I hardly expect that was his primary motivation.
Still, the enemy of my enemy and all that..
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's a politician. By that very definition, he is not to be trusted. His motivations and intentions are suspect, and always will be.
Trust a politician, and you get what you deserve.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Calling a libertarian an "extreme right" shows that you have no concept of who the "extreme right" really are. Obama is more of a right winger than your average libertarian.
Hidden (Score:2)
I'm sorry but the Supreme Court should rule there is no such thing as a secret law or secret interpretation of a law.
While details of any particular case could be secret, of course, the law itself cannot be. To suggest otherwise should be considered treason against freedom itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. The congress writes the laws, the executive enforces laws. Exec does not publish a written interpretation for every law, they just arrest or kill, and show up in court with the written law.
If there is a technical appeal, the courts decide interpretation. Until that point, no ones interpretation means anything.
The only point where it matters is when scotus allows a secret decision based on secret evidence. Because that establishes case law, which lasts until congress changes the law.
So what you d
Even a stopped clock is right... (Score:2)
Now, I will be the last person who believes that Rand Paul is doing something for any reason other than his own advancement and publicity, but... I've gotta say... This is actually a legitimate and valid reason for holding up a confirmation hearing. The guy being confirmed has some controversial viewpoints about American law? That's directly relevant to whether or not he should be on the bench. I assumed this was more stupid Republican hostage-taking, but it's actually relevant. Go stopped clocks!
Re: (Score:2)
The stopped-clock metaphor is rather apt in this case. Rand Paul's hands are stuck in one position ("the federal government is wrong"), and from time to time that position is correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Stay off my public roads. And don't use my public lines for your electricity. Don't flush that toilet and put your waste into my public sewer system. Don't be protected by my public police, and don't let your house catch on fire, those are my public firemen. Don't be protected by the public legal system. Don't listen to the radio, regulated by the government. Don't use any spectrum at all. Hope you're not on wireless. Oh, and give back your public education. You probably shouldn't have a job, since the comp
Re: (Score:2)
Your police, fire department, sewer, water, and schools are courtesy of the federal government? The taxes collected by the federal government dwarf local government, and what do most of us get for it on a day to day basis? Jack shit.
We'd all be better off if we paid the bulk of our taxes locally, so all those important local functions you listed can be improved, and give less to the federal government so they can use it to wage a wars on brown people and green plants.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. It's a perfect reason to block the funding bill for the department which operates and controls the drones. It's not a legitimate reason for stopping anything else, whether it be a judicial appointment, money for school lunches, or regulations regarding the Keystone XL pipeline.
drones good at targeting terrorists in deserts (Score:2)
Americans? (Score:2)
I've often thought that a lot of the problem with "the government is killing American citizens" is actually a problem with citizenship, not with killing Americans. Generally these American citizens are the children of non-citizens who only spent a limited amount of time in the USA and much of their time they spent growing up was in a society radically different from the US.
Maybe the solution to "killing American citizens" is to not let these people become citizens in the first place? (The first thing that
Re: (Score:3)
sadly, Rand Paul (Score:2)
he just drones on and on and on and on....
Re:His concern is touching (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so nice to see a Republican actually care about someone who does not reside in a uterus, provided they have a valid US passport.
And you don't care about people in the uterus? If not, then why not?
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't care about people in the uterus? If not, then why not?
I'm not the GP, but I think you start out wrong by saying "people". To justify classification as people, I would think a certain amount of self-awareness is needed.
If someone cuts off a tip of his finger, you wouldn't call it "people", would you? How about a biopsy? Is that a person too? How about the sperm you lose pretty much every day?
What's so special about the zygote that it becomes a person? To me this seems to require magical thinking.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
GP was talking about a person, and so am I. That's why we call them "unborn child", and "baby in the womb". Noone can discard a human life without being a murderer. Therefore to justify themselves - just like in any genocide, those in favour of killing unborn babies, have to label abortion as not killing, and the baby as not human.
What a stupid argument.
Let me ask you a question. Why are you not guilty of magical thinking when you put a living human adult in a different category to a zygote or a dishwasher?
Re: (Score:2)
GP was talking about a person, and so am I.
We all are. The problem is defining what a "person" is.
I posit that a collection of cells that has no self-awareness or consciousness is not a person, and that you have to introduce magical thinking to justify a viewpoint that it is a person.
Let me ask you a question. Why are you not guilty of magical thinking when you put a living human adult in a different category to a zygote or a dishwasher? Why do you afford adult human cell collections moral rights that you don't afford zygotes or dishwashers. I'll tell you why: It's because your concience tells you that human life is special and must be preserved, and that murder is an outrageous crime, and yet you mock those who believe likewise for unborn children.
First you ask two questions, and then you answer them with irrational answers. What's the question I was supposed to answer?
For a murder to occur, there has to be someone murdered. Do you murder carrots? Who, exactly, do you murder when you turn off life support on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Extremely hard questions that don't have to be fully answered to realize that something without a functioning brain isn't sentient.
Sentient life has to have some ability to create thoughts. It has to be self-aware. A dog is more sentient than a fetus is in the first trimester. And we have no problem with killing dogs. We try to do it kindly when we do it. But we do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"That's why we call them "unborn child", and "baby in the womb""
only people who want to lie and use emotional and incorrect terminology say that becasue they have no real argument so emotional bias is what they can use.
zygote is not a person.
You are being stupid. Logically, emotionally stupid.
YOU are redefining person. It's really basic science.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a two-cell zygote isn't a person (closer to your "fingertip" example, but what is the magical thinking that is required to claim a full term fetus is not a person but a one day born baby is?
Why would anyone think that? The magical thinking is that there is a given point that suddenly and magically makes someone a person.
My view is that unless a clump of cells can demonstrate consciousness and self-awareness, it is not a person. Whether it's a foetus or a corpse on life support.
Unless one has a religious belief in a supreme being who at some point injects a "soul", consciousness and self-awareness comes slowly. At one point it might be similar to an apple. I have no qualms about killing app
Re: (Score:2)
The magical thinking is that there is a given point that suddenly and magically makes someone a person.
At one point it might be similar to an apple. I have no qualms about killing apples or apple trees.
So SO stupid.
Do you not see? In your world-view there isn't a difference between an apple, an apple tree, a zygote or an adult human. They are all just patterns of matter. But then you're trying to reach out and say there's something more to a born human than an unborn human - which is wholly arbitrary.
(Plainly this philosphy of yours is contradictory because you DO believe there is something inherantly valuable about a human life, because you have a notion of rights - but anyway).
You can't have it both w
Re: (Score:2)
Oh except that you say the adult is self aware.
What about when you've been anaethsetised? or drunk? or concussed? Do you have a right to life then?
Self-aware and conscious, i.e. sentience.
If you are unconscious or asleep, you have already shown you are sentient, and if the condition is temporary, sure, you should be treated as an unconscious sentient creature.
How about when you were 1-hour old - were you self aware then? You suppose so
No, I don't. Stop assuming what my views are, cause this is the second time you got it dead wrong.
I happen to think that newborns are less sentient than the animals in the breakfast I just had and less deserving of protection from society. If a mother wants to protect her newborn (or her pet bu
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to think that newborns are less sentient than the animals in the breakfast I just had and less deserving of protection from society.
I'm amazed by your willingness to take your worldview to it's logical conclusion. Most people try and having it both ways - and don't see themselves doing so.
I'm just thankful you don't set the rules. At least most people still understand that infanticide is evil, and that it's society's duty to protect children - though it seems you're too wrapped up in your theories to understand these simple things.
If you really live what you say you believe, then you're a monster!
Re: (Score:2)
I havn't been any more or less logical than arth1 has. He just has a world-view, a philosophy, the name of which is "Materialism" - you may heard the term. It's the view that all is matter and matter is all (pluse energy, space, time etc.)
A lot of people here have that worldview. Some worldviews are consistent. Some are inconsistent. You can tell the inconsistent ones because they lead you to absurd conclusions: such as a human life only has life if it's self aware, therefore it's justified to kill 1-hour
Re: (Score:2)
If we found a way to make a computer self-aware -- truly pass the Turing test -- I'd have a problem with killing that computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the anti-abortionists don't care about people in the uterus particularity, what they care about is people doing something pleasurable such as sex, else they'd be pushing birth control to make abortions unneeded instead of being just as uptight about birth control as abortion.
Re: (Score:2)
If people are decide to kill infants this is simply wrong
The circumstances of the child's concept really don't have anything to do with it.
Also there seem to be quite a hatred of right wing people among American Slashdotters. They may well be arseholes, but that doesn't relieve of your duty to protect vulnerable infants.
Re: (Score:2)
And the best way to protect unwanted vulnerable infants is to stop them from ever coming into existence and studies show that educating people, especially young people is the most effective way to do this. Prohibition on the other hand has been shown to be a failure when ever tried and in the case of abortion just led to more suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
There not people. IT's a fetus. The fact that you don't use the correct term indicates your emotional based bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a red herring. Almost all baby terminations are done purely for convenience.
Just because something happens, doesn't mean it should be legal, especially when it's morrally repugnant.
Re: (Score:2)
" Almost all baby terminations are done purely for convenience."
That false. You are a liar.
It isn't morally repugnant. People who shove their belief down other peoples throats are morally repugnant
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it's hard. Life IS hard. This isn't Disney.
But one thing I can wrap my head around: Ask the child whether it would be happy to have it's chance of life taken from it. Or ask them if they'd at least like a say in what their fate be.
Ask that question - ask yourself that question; and you can see that the issue really isn't all complex.
Re: (Score:2)
"But one thing I can wrap my head around: Ask the child whether it would be happy to have it's chance of life taken from it. Or ask them if they'd at least like a say in what their fate be.
it's not a child. If we could ask that question, then it wouldn't be a discussion.
It isn't complex at all. A woman should be able to have an abortion is she want s to and YOU should not be able to shove your belief down their throats. Simple.
You make shit up, apply your own belief, disregard the constitution. YOU are maki
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's so nice to see a Republican actually care about someone who does not reside in a uterus, provided they have a valid US passport.
While I object to your attempt to make some sort of distinction between republicans and democrats (because that was your goal) I still need to point out that Rand Paul is about the most un-republican out there. Granted, he could be lying, he is a politician after all.
Re:His concern is touching (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Fun fact - there's only two "viable" parties because the voters believe that and go along with it.
You want things to change? Stop voting for the same BS while complaining that you "don't have a choice."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it. Afghanistan is not centrally strong like most countries. When you go out of the cities, it's mostly ruled by clerics or warlords. The citizens say "yes sir" to whomever's pointing a gun at them at any given time.
Not that we went to war on Terror, not against Afghanistan. Also note that we invaded a country because of the actions of a few people in that country. That's a pretty scary precident. If some Fundamental Americans bomb an abortion clinic ov
Re: (Score:2)
No, Afghanistan is accurate. Saudi Arabia is where they were from, not where they were based.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be an interesting exercise to imagine what would happen if the Russians, Iranians or North Koreans started to perform 'extra-judicial' killings within the borders of the US. Would the American President, Congress or Public accept this?
That's why we don't let terrorists targeting foreign countries run around our country with impunity. (except for Republicans)
Re: (Score:2)
It is the Senate's job to vet judicial nominees, not just rubber-stamp every appointment. In this case, the nominee himself authored some or all of the legal "justification" the President used to execute an American citizen without a trial. Paul is doing his job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide any evidence of this or do you just like spouting gossip?
Rand Paul ABDUCTED Female Student While In College, Tried To Force Her To 'Take Bong Hits,' GQ Article Alleges [huffingtonpost.com]
Let me guess. You are the WT's personal lobbyists, who is running interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)