|
Segueing off the GOP Rebuilding thread, let's talk about drones without derailing other threads. I'd like to respond to this, particularly: Miltank posted:It was night I think. I don't really understand the lack of support for rand here, who gives a poo poo about what his motives are? He is actively filibustering to bring attention to executive overreach within the drone program. How is that not a good thing? The only thing that I am upset about is that no progressive congressman has done this first. There is no such thing as executive overreach within the drone program. When you say (through military appropriations) "buy drones" on the one hand, and on the other, say "use the military against terrorists," you've given carte blanche for the President to use military drones in the way he has been doing. Paul's throwing a temper tantrum that Congress has completely abdicated its warmaking powers, wondering why the President is fighting a war that they continue to tell him to fight. This has been a complaint of mine since Bush: I don't like what the AUMF says, but it's pretty clear what it means. I do feel like Americans' feelings about drones - particularly the paranoid fear that they'll be used against Americans on American soil expounded by Paul in his filibuster last night - are based on notions of secrecy that are really, really dumb. Let's be clear what the fear is: Obama hasn't been talking about drone strikes - hasn't been publicizing them for the most part, doesn't announce how many, doesn't give much details about them - and therefore he could somehow use them secretly in America against Americans. This is just dumb. Drone strikes might not be known about here, but they're absolutely known about where they happen. Things like "oh, that house just blew up" is kinda noticeable! This is the same kind of paranoid lunacy of the UN black helicopter variety.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 16:54 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 11:25 |
|
|
Lindsey Graham brought a chart!
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:00 |
|
|
I think it's extremely toxic when an establishment liberal like Jon Stewart goes on to cheerlead Rand Paul even with the disclaimers he gave on his show. There was no mention of the fact that the only reason Paul was filibustering was because of a hypothetical domestic drone strike - instead, he was painted as being opposed to all drone strikes that occur without due process. Of course, the other reason this was an absolute horseshit hypothetical was because it revolved around some white dude sipping a latte at Starbucks getting nuked for no reason. I'd be interested to see his position on this if it were a Muslim extremist in a shack in Alaska. And although I know it isn't specifically within the purview of this thread, I'm not sure where else to say it seeing as how it was segued out of the GOP rebuilding thread - it's exactly this kind of thinking that will rebuild the Republican party. It's very easy for a young person to look at a guy like Rand Paul supposedly taking a stance against drone strikes, and talking about being open to the idea of pot legalization, while calling out the little details around the rest of his beliefs is decried as shrill.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:02 |
|
|
Radbot posted:I think it's extremely toxic when an establishment liberal like Jon Stewart goes on to cheerlead Rand Paul even with the disclaimers he gave on his show. There was no mention of the fact that the only reason Paul was filibustering was because of a hypothetical domestic drone strike - instead, he was painted as being opposed to all drone strikes that occur without due process. Of course, the other reason this was an absolute horseshit hypothetical was because it revolved around some white dude sipping a latte at Starbucks getting nuked for no reason. I'd be interested to see his position on this if it were a Muslim extremist in a shack in Alaska. To be fair, if you dislike drones, it is tempting to jump onto the first person who is actually willing to talk about drones, because Democrats sure as hell aren't going to do it, and just about every Republican loves drones more than even Democrats, even if said person is just doing incredibly disingenuous political grandstanding.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:05 |
|
|
McCain just said, "we could do a better job of defining imminent". That would go a long way toward answering Rand's point, right?Radbot posted:There was no mention of the fact that the only reason Paul was filibustering was because of a hypothetical domestic drone strike - instead, he was painted as being opposed to all drone strikes that occur without due process. ... I'd be interested to see his position on this if it were a Muslim extremist in a shack in Alaska. Rand spoke at length yesterday about his opposition to the targeted killings of both Awlakis, at least one of whom qualifies as a "Muslim extremist". Rand holds a great number of opinions, most of them terrible, so we don't need to invent ones for him.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:07 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:To be fair, if you dislike drones, it is tempting to jump onto the first person who is actually willing to talk about drones, because Democrats sure as hell aren't going to do it, and just about every Republican loves drones more than even Democrats, even if said person is just doing incredibly disingenuous political grandstanding. Yeah, that's kinda my reaction. I'm glad to see drones getting talked about even if it's Randy raising the issue (and for the wrong reasons).
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:08 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Rand spoke at length yesterday about his opposition to the targeted killings of both Awlakis, at least one of whom qualifies as a "Muslim extremist". Rand holds a great number of opinions, most of them terrible, so we don't need to invent ones for him. You honestly believe his stance on the Awlakis is in any way sincere? Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, that's kinda my reaction. I'm glad to see drones getting talked about even if it's Randy raising the issue (and for the wrong reasons). Yes, I'm sure that drones being talked about won't simply become another hatchet to chop at Obama with. Substantive discussion about the rules of war and due process are forthcoming, I have no doubt. We've completely swept the Iraq war under the rug at this point, and we honestly think that we're going to have a discussion about drone warfare over two Americans with ties to terrorism? Radbot fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2013 around 17:11 |
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:09 |
|
|
Radbot posted:You honestly believe his stance on the Awlakis is in any way sincere? It's an opening to shift the Overton window back in the right direction, that's all. Of course right now it's just another hatchet to chop at Obama with, but what the hell, they're going to be chopping at Obama anyway with something, I'd rather this than DEBT.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:14 |
|
|
Joementum posted:McCain just said, "we could do a better job of defining imminent". That would go a long way toward answering Rand's point, right? e: And there was a recent leak suggesting that the younger Alwaki was not targeted, that it was a mistake. There is also the question of whether playing a permanent game of terrorist whack-a-mole is good policy.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:15 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's an opening to shift the Overton window back in the right direction, that's all. Of course right now it's just another hatchet to chop at Obama with, but what the hell, they're going to be chopping at Obama anyway with something, I'd rather this than DEBT. Fair enough, but I simply don't understand how or why drones would the straw breaking the camel's back when thousands of American troops dying for no reason hasn't significantly reduced the support for our military misadventures.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:16 |
|
|
Radbot posted:You honestly believe his stance on the Awlakis is in any way sincere? I do, yes.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:16 |
|
|
I thought the whole complaint with drones was basically about the "targeted killing" process in general, not some stupid bullshit about spooky hardware? Why is worrying about domestic drone strikes even a thing when the military already has a few million other ways that they could kill someone on American soil?
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:18 |
|
|
Joementum posted:I do, yes. Considering his voting record and public stances on foreign policy, it seems awfully convenient that he agrees with every other aspect of US militarism but those two particular drone strikes. I'm sure he has been active in spurring the DOJ to look at other abuse of due process for domestic suspects, right?
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:20 |
|
|
Query: What's really the big deal about this? From what I understand, this is nothing that we haven't been doing for decades or more except now it's scary flying robots instead of helicopters full of soldiers or a guy with a high-powered rifle. Is this controversy entirely because people are afraid of technology or am I missing something? (Besides 'the President is a black Democrat and so everything he does is evil'.)
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:22 |
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I thought the whole complaint with drones was basically about the "targeted killing" process in general, not some stupid bullshit about spooky hardware? If I were to posit a guess, it would be that none of the other means have received open consideration from the Obama administration.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:22 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Considering his voting record and public stances on foreign policy, it seems awfully convenient that he agrees with every other aspect of US militarism but those two particular drone strikes. I'm not sure I understand. He voted against the NDAA last time it was up, introduced an amendment to end the Iraq War, against the Cybersecurity Act, against FISA reauthorization, for an amendment repealing the NDAA's requirement of military custody for terrorist suspects, against the Patriot Act extension, etc. I wish he was still in his self-licensed optometrist's office instead of the Senate, but he doesn't have the record and views you want to ascribe to him.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:24 |
|
|
Radbot posted:Considering his voting record and public stances on foreign policy, it seems awfully convenient that he agrees with every other aspect of US militarism but those two particular drone strikes. I'm sure he has been active in spurring the DOJ to look at other abuse of due process for domestic suspects, right? "You can never kill an American citizen without due process" fits in fine with his foreign policy and libertarian stances. This is a dumb filibuster, though, and it seems like Paul was planning on doing it no matter what Holder said because the response he provided is completely reasonable and in no way an attack on the Constitution or civil rights like some would like to pretend.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:26 |
|
|
Democrazy posted:If I were to posit a guess, it would be that none of the other means have received open consideration from the Obama administration.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:46 |
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I thought the whole complaint with drones was basically about the "targeted killing" process in general, not some stupid bullshit about spooky hardware? Tempest_56 posted:Query: What's really the big deal about this? From what I understand, this is nothing that we haven't been doing for decades or more except now it's scary flying robots instead of helicopters full of soldiers or a guy with a high-powered rifle. Is this controversy entirely because people are afraid of technology or am I missing something? (Besides 'the President is a black Democrat and so everything he does is evil'.) I'd argue that the use of drones, domestically and abroad, simply lowers the threshold of when the government can apply lethal force. It's precisely because they don't have to put troops in harms way, or waste a million dollar cruise missile on a single insurgent, or any kind of skin in the game except for replaceable hardware that makes drones such a tempting, go-to option. But the question is, at what point do we recognize that foreign policy concepts like "mowing the lawn" or "terrorist whack-a-mole" are just playful language for murdering people who may, in some cases rightfully, harbor anti-US sentiments (and in a lot of cases, can't really act on it in any global sense). But use of drones abroad doesn't really seem to be the big heater issue at the moment. The question of drones domestically seems to only focus on their lethal use, with surveillance being A-OK just about everyone but Rand Paul's book. The domestic question is whether the government can drone strike an American that is suspected to have in the past, is currently, or in the future may be some vague notion of a threat to the American government or people, as opposed to sending in authorities to apprehend this person. While Rand Paul has some nutty ideas, this is an issue that should draw bipartisan support because of the amount of policy creep and precedent that revolves around it. Paul made the good point during his filibuster that this isn't so much of a question towards the Obama administration, but all future administrations and their use of drones, and how the Senate/Congress need to act as a check on that power. Yes, that's a power that they've rescinded in the past as others have pointed out, but I don't think that means we should demonize or turn against efforts to step up to the plate now. You may not see an incident in today's political climate where the government using a drone against domestic citizens is a possibility, but that doesn't necessarily apply to the climate in ten or twenty years.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:56 |
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Did you read the post I was replying to? I honestly don't feel I need to explain. It's like asking me why, when responding to a post saying that we only use the military in other countries, I post a picture of the US military patrolling the border or something. It's more like you post a picture of the US military training somewhere in the country. Testing and demonstrating drones is a far cry from the kind of use he was talking about. Even NASA's use of them to monitor wildlife is a far cry from the kind of use he was talking about.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 17:57 |
|
|
PeterWeller posted:"You can never kill an American citizen without due process" fits in fine with his foreign policy and libertarian stances. There's nothing wrong with that as far as it goes, the problem is that most people don't understand what due process means. It's just a requirement that government act with good reasons, and not arbitrarily. What constitutes due process varies enormously depending on the situation. For example, if an American citizen pulls a gun on a cop, all the due process required is for the cop to recognize the threat and shoot the guy. A cop drawing a gun on a random citizen for no reason is not allowed, but acting responsibly in the face of a direct threat is perfectly OK.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:00 |
|
|
I have one main question about this whole debate. From what I understand, based on recent history, Republican administrations have been fairly OK with the "extra-judicial" killing of foreign citizens. By that I mean the killing of foreign leaders and individuals who were not tried in domestic or international courts, at least for the reasons they were killed or attempted to be killed by us or people armed by us. Between direct military/CIA intervention along with the lethal support we've provided to murderous rebel groups in other countries over the decades, under such unassailable Republican presidents as Reagan, there are plenty of instances throughout our relatively brief history of us deciding that this guy, or group of guys, needs to be taken out. And I really doubt Paul would have started a filibuster to hate on Reagan or either of the Bush's policies in this regard. Yet, when the person in question is technically an American citizen, who has renounced his country and now lives abroad in order to better orchestrate attacks against the US, a Democratic administration's decision that he needs to be taken out is somehow so much worse. I don't really buy the argument that sending in some actual humans to kill him in person is that different than killing him via an unmanned, yet human controlled, drone, nor do I understand how drone-strikes are any more "targeted" than traditional methods of collecting intelligence then dispatching a team to do the dirty work. Either way, you're locating someone, confirming details, then killing them. So basically, the implication I get is that certain human beings (Americans) are more worthy of life, or less kill-able, than some other human beings (Middle Eastern, African, Asian, Eastern European), simply because of their country of origin. How is that not racist and putting a different valuation on life depending on which country you enjoy citizenship to? I get that much of Paul's argument emphasized a hyperbolic hypothetical involving a domestic drone strike, but the core of the argument I think for a lot of people is, "you're killing Americans, man!" Nevermind the fact that most of the Republicans opposed to this hail from states were Americans are routinely executed, and occasionally posthumously exonerated of all wrongdoing, for crimes much less than plotting to kill a few thousand people. TheMammoth fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2013 around 18:09 |
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:05 |
|
|
I've been trying to wrap my head around how this became a case of classic filibustering. I thought that a small handful of congress critters were able to table a bill almost indefinitely by invoking some ill-interpreted rule/clause and skip the phone-book reading type of filibuster altogether. Do the congressmen who object to killer-roboting U.S. citizens not even have the numbers to do this or is this solely political theater? I'm against drone strikes altogether though, I think there should be some kind of human risk involved in all acts of war, however small. If someone's got to die, it has to be weighed against a cost higher than a replaceable robot. maniacripper fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2013 around 18:09 |
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:05 |
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:There isn't really anything the administration could use to justify a drone stroke that they couldn't use to justify sending an army sniper to put a bullet in their head though. That's true, but again, it's what the administration has been revealed to have been considering versus a hypothetical. That, and pushback on drones could be considered a pushback against targeted killings in general.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:06 |
|
|
maniacripper posted:I've been trying to wrap my head around how this became a case of classic filibustering. I thought that a small handful of congress critters were able to table a bill almost indefinitely by invoking some ill-interpreted rule/clause and skip the phone-book reading type of filibuster altogether. It's the former. If they had 40 votes against Brennan, they wouldn't have had to had Rand Paul go out and do a talking filibuster because they could have just blocked him in silence.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:11 |
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I thought the whole complaint with drones was basically about the "targeted killing" process in general, not some stupid bullshit about spooky hardware? It depends who you ask, but people who hear "we're using DRONE STRIKES to kill people!" are thinking that it's about the drones rather than the strikes.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:11 |
|
|
TheMammoth posted:So basically, the implication I get is that certain human beings (Americans) are more worthy of life, or less kill-able, than some other human beings (Middle Eastern, African, Asian, Eastern European), simply because of their country of origin. How is that not racist and putting a different valuation on life depending on which country you enjoy citizenship to? It is racist. Rand Paul is a rather horrible nativist. It should also be emphasized that of the Republicans who joined in his speech, only Mike Lee of Utah has anything coming close to a credible history on objection to domestic use of drones. Others, like Marco Rubio, voted for a bill to authorize commercial drone use in the US by 2015 as well as regulated government use of drones domestically.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:15 |
|
|
That argument comes up a lot, with great rebuttals like "You only don't like it because it's drones  *bombs more people".
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:15 |
|
|
LP97S posted:That argument comes up a lot, with great rebuttals like "You only don't like it because it's drones What is this supposed to mean? Are we allowed to call Randpaul out on the fact that he's very choosy on which constitutional rights the government should observe and/or preserve and likes the idea of drones for border control? Or do we just need to cheer for those things because that son of a bitch is the guy who's piping up about a lack of due process?
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:20 |
|
|
Joementum posted:It is racist. Rand Paul is a rather horrible nativist. It should also be emphasized that of the Republicans who joined in his speech, only Mike Lee of Utah has anything coming close to a credible history on objection to domestic use of drones. Others, like Marco Rubio, voted for a bill to authorize commercial drone use in the US by 2015 as well as regulated government use of drones domestically. So can we credibly view this newfound support of Paul as a flash in the pan? And where does this place Paul in terms of the Republican leadership?
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:21 |
|
|
Democrazy posted:So can we credibly view this newfound support of Paul as a flash in the pan? Most likely, yes. The cloture vote will pass tomorrow and Brennan will be confirmed as CIA Director shortly thereafter. quote:And where does this place Paul in terms of the Republican leadership? 
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:22 |
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:What is this supposed to mean? Are we allowed to call Randpaul out on the fact that he's very choosy on which constitutional rights the government should observe and/or preserve and likes the idea of drones for border control? Or do we just need to cheer for those things because that rear end in a top hat's the guy who's piping up about a lack of due process? You can agree with what he's protesting and still not vote for him? He's an rear end in a top hat but he's not wrong on this? Why does it matter who is leading the fillibuster, the actual topic of debate is more interesting/worth discussing than the frontman.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:23 |
|
|
gvibes posted:Yep. The DOJ white paper seemed to take a very expansive view of this.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:27 |
|
|
Jeffrey posted:You can agree with what he's protesting and still not vote for him? He's an rear end in a top hat but he's not wrong on this? Why does it matter who is leading the fillibuster, the actual topic of debate is more interesting/worth discussing than the frontman. The problem with it is that like so many other Paul positions (Him and his dad) that even when they're in favor of a good thing, they're usually in favor of it for the wrong reason. There's not much of a chance that this was done because he really, deeply, truly feels that this is wrong, but rather because it improves the Rand Paul(tm) brand.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:30 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:The problem with it is that like so many other Paul positions (Him and his dad) that even when they're in favor of a good thing, they're usually in favor of it for the wrong reason. Why is that a "problem"? It would be a problem if this were a thread about reelecting one of them, but it isn't. Sorry if this comes off as shutting down discussion, but I don't see why this is a worthwhile thing to talk about compared to drone strikes themselves. Even if he kicked off the debate, I don't think the current events in congress are interesting compared to the actual topic of those events. I also think that he *does* truly feel this is wrong, but that's kind of besides the point and I'm not going to belabor the point.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:34 |
|
|
Canadian Surf Club posted:The domestic question is whether the government can drone strike an American that is suspected to have in the past, is currently, or in the future may be some vague notion of a threat to the American government or people, as opposed to sending in authorities to apprehend this person. The discussion over their use as a way to simplify targeted killing abroad is another discussion entirely and has some merits, but talking about their use as a domestic assassination tool is some sort of hosed up technophobic paranoia.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:37 |
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Why is that a "problem"? Because he has no credibility to be talking about this. A broken clock is right twice a day. They could've gotten a properly working clock to talk about this instead.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:40 |
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:What is this supposed to mean? Are we allowed to call Randpaul out on the fact that he's very choosy on which constitutional rights the government should observe and/or preserve and likes the idea of drones for border control? Or do we just need to cheer for those things because that son of a bitch is the guy who's piping up about a lack of due process? No, not at all. The rebuttal is just one I see ever since Obama started to ramp up the drone strikes with people accusing those critical of drone strikes as just being choosy.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:41 |
|
|
And Rand Paul got an answer to his question.quote:Carney said that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) had on Thursday asked the administration if the president has the authority to use a mechanized drone against an American on U.S. soil who is not engaged in hostile activities. "The answer to that question is no," Carney said, reading from a new a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder addressed to Paul. There, not that hard.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:44 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 11:25 |
|
|
LP97S posted:No, not at all. The rebuttal is just one I see ever since Obama started to ramp up the drone strikes with people accusing those critical of drone strikes as just being choosy. Well, Randpaul is choosy, just about constitutional rights as opposed to what method of wanton killing the United States Government uses.
|
| # ? Mar 7, 2013 18:44 |
|
