Post by: huntrights on March 06, 2013, 12:09:09 PM
Eric Holder: Drone Strike on Americans in U.S. Conceivable
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/03/06/eric-holder-drone-strike-in-u-s-conceivable/
Post by: Windwalker on March 06, 2013, 05:03:41 PM
WASHINGTON -- In a rare, traditional filibuster, Sen. Rand Paul vowed to speak on the Senate floor "as long as it takes" to draw attention to his concerns about the Obama administration's policy regarding the targeted killing of American terrorism suspects.
The Kentucky Republican took to the floor before noon Wednesday to block an expected vote on the nomination of John Brennan to lead the CIA, with aides saying he could continue for hours. Paul, beginning his remarks, said he would continue "until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important."
"Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans?" Paul asked. "No one person, no one politician should be allowed ... to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything we fundamentally believe in our country."
“I have allowed the president to pick his appointees, but I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution,” he said. “I cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the president say he will kill Americans on American soil who are not actively attacking the country.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rand-paul-brennan-nomination-20130306,0,257591.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rand-paul-brennan-nomination-20130306,0,257591.story)
Post by: huntrights on March 06, 2013, 10:48:12 PM
Hello! Does anyone sense a problem here?
Post by: huntrights on March 06, 2013, 11:32:17 PM
Copy and paste subject:
Drone strikes on American citizens on American soil
Copy and paste message or write your own:
I have a very simple question to ask.
Do you support drone strikes on American citizens on American soil?
Quote from Senator Rand Paul (La Times, "Rand Paul vows to speak 'as long as it takes' to block Brennan", March 6, 2013),
“I have allowed the president to pick his appointees, but I will not sit quietly and let him shred the Constitution,” he said. “I cannot sit at my desk quietly and let the president say he will kill Americans on American soil who are not actively attacking the country.”
Personally, I find the current administration’s position on this and many other subjects very troubling.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Your contact information]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Links to fast and easy methods for communicating with your representatives:
NRA-ILA
http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx
NSSF
http://www.nssf.org/ProtectYourRights/
SCI
http://www.scifirstforhunters.org/advocacy/contactcongressman
USSA
http://capwiz.com/ussportsmen/home/
WA – Find Your Legislator
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
WA Legislator Email Addresses
https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx
USA.Gov – Contact Elected Officials
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2013, 12:08:43 AM
Post by: huntrights on March 07, 2013, 12:12:12 AM
I think each and every one of us should be sending a thank you to Senator Rand Paul.
I have in the past and I will again.
Post by: Diehard0123 on March 07, 2013, 12:19:12 AM
http://www.infowars.com/government-arms-race-kicks-into-high-gear-as-dhs-buys-2700-armored-vehicles-for-streets-of-america/ (http://www.infowars.com/government-arms-race-kicks-into-high-gear-as-dhs-buys-2700-armored-vehicles-for-streets-of-america/)
DHS purchases 1.6 billion rounds of amunition
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/ (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/)
DHS purchases 7000 "assault" rifles
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-buys-7000-full-auto-assault-rifles-calls-them-personal-defense-weapons/ (http://www.infowars.com/dhs-buys-7000-full-auto-assault-rifles-calls-them-personal-defense-weapons/)
Now Eric Holder supports drone strikes within the US on American Citizens?!?
Get ready folks :yike:
Post by: JJD on March 07, 2013, 02:39:30 AM
I think each and every one of us should be sending a thank you to Senator Rand Paul.:yeah:
Post by: huntrights on March 07, 2013, 07:34:08 AM
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=contact
Write your U.S. Senators and Representatives as well; ask them if they support drone strikes on Americans on American soil.
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2013, 09:35:28 AM
Link to thank Senator Rand Paul::tup:
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=contact
Write your U.S. Senators and Representatives as well; ask them if they support drone strikes on Americans on American soil.
Post by: xd2005 on March 07, 2013, 09:50:41 AM
In regards to the "light armored tanks" everyone is concerned about, I tend to believe this logical explanation (I know, I shouldn't, as there are facts that are hidden from everyone, so I can't rely on facts that are evident but trust in the unknown and assume the worst).
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/294634_Factchecking-_Obama_DHS_Purcha (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/294634_Factchecking-_Obama_DHS_Purcha)
Post by: washelkhunter on March 07, 2013, 09:57:39 AM
Post by: huntrights on March 07, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
No offense, but infowars is the last place I would go to for legitimate news.
In regards to the "light armored tanks" everyone is concerned about, I tend to believe this logical explanation (I know, I shouldn't, as there are facts that are hidden from everyone, so I can't rely on facts that are evident but trust in the unknown and assume the worst).
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/294634_Factchecking-_Obama_DHS_Purcha (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/294634_Factchecking-_Obama_DHS_Purcha)
The original post and thread is about very real and verifiable events. Senator Rand Paul did start a filibuster yesterday because of the position (or lack of) the administration has taken regarding the question of drone strikes on Americans on American soil.
People are becoming very concerned about these types of issues; particularly when it comes to threats to the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We should always try to find and verify facts; this can sometimes be difficult in our information rich world of propaganda and twisted truths. :twocents:
Post by: huntrights on March 07, 2013, 11:13:34 AM
Top 10 Quotes From Rand Paul’s Amazing Filibuster on Civil Liberties, Drone Strikes
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/06/top-10-quotes-from-rand-pauls-amazing-8-plus-hour-filibuster-on-civil-liberties-drone-strikes/
Post by: xd2005 on March 07, 2013, 11:19:45 AM
I also started a thread regarding Senator Paul's filibuster and watched quite a bit of it yesterday.
To be clear, Senator Paul's question is actually quite narrow, in that his true question boils down to "Does the Administration believe it has the right to use a drone strike against a non-combatant American on American soil?"
He has no problem with utilizing lethal force against combatant Americans on American soil, or even for law enforcement to use them as a tool to kill, for example, a robber coming out of a liquor store with a gun.
If someone takes up arms against the U.S. government, they are in for a rude awakening if they believe their constitutional rights prevent them from being dispatched, without a trial.
Post by: huntrights on March 07, 2013, 11:47:36 AM
I just sent a thank you to Senator Rand Paul. He is definitely a defender of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Post by: thatkidwho on March 07, 2013, 01:02:43 PM
From their statements it sounds like they do believe that.
This is one of the major concerns the founding fathers had. Everyone should be concerned today despite your political leanings. Once a precedent is set, rarely is it repealed.
Don't be sidetracked by drones, drones are a tool. We must look at the people using the tool, the military complex. It should also be noted the administration is constantly expanding the definition of enemy combatant, terrorist, etc. to include fringe thinkers. Groups that are currently not hostile to the government but are opposed to their policies.
Post by: xd2005 on March 07, 2013, 01:07:30 PM
I think the root question is: Does the Administration believe they have the authority to use the military against US citizens on US soil?
From their statements it sounds like they do believe that.
This is one of the major concerns the founding fathers had. Everyone should be concerned today despite your political leanings. Once a precedent is set, rarely is it repealed.
Don't be sidetracked by drones, drones are a tool. We must look at the people using the tool, the military complex. It should also be noted the administration is constantly expanding the definition of enemy combatant, terrorist, etc. to include fringe thinkers. Groups that are currently not hostile to the government but are opposed to their policies.
Holder has now gone on record to indicate that the Administration does not have the authority to conduct a drone strike on a non-combatant American on American soil.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/07/obama-holder-paul-drone-strikes/1970819/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/07/obama-holder-paul-drone-strikes/1970819/)
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2013, 01:15:17 PM
When are the Republicans going to wake the hell up and realize that they are their own worst enemy. :bash:
SENATOR McCAIN ON DRONES AND THE FILIBUSTER ON THE FLOOR OF THE U.S. SENATE 3-7-13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzYEaY0dvUI#)
"WASHINGTON -- One of the Senate's leading hawks, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), took to the Senate floor Thursday to fire back at Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), saying the Kentuckian's rant against extrajudicial drone killings was "simply false."
Quoting extensively from a Wall Street Journal editorial that mocked Paul, McCain also argued that Paul had belittled the growing use of drones to kill terrorism suspects by invoking the name of Jane Fonda and suggesting a drone could have killed her when she was a Vietnam War protester.
Paul took to the floor Wednesday for nearly 13 hours, hoping to pressure the White House to declare whether or not it might use a drone to strike an American citizen in the United States.
McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, was not impressed.
"I watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday," McCain said. "I saw colleagues who know better come to the floor and voice some of this same concern, which is totally unfounded.
"I must say that the use of Jane Fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and I must say that she is not my favorite American. But I also believe that, as odious as it was, Ms. Fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with American policy -- and even may demonstrate against it -- is somehow a member of an organization which makes that individual an enemy combatant is simply false," McCain said, hitting his lectern for emphasis. "It is simply false."
McCain said it was "ridiculous" and "a stretch of the imagination" to "allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies."
The Wall Street Journal editorial he quoted was even more scathing, declaring, "Give Rand Paul credit for theatrical timing, as a snow storm descended on Washington. The filibuster filled the attention void on Twitter and cable TV. If only his reasoning matched the showmanship."
The editorial also complained that Paul should not be shocked that the United States might kill a citizen by drone strike within its own borders, arguing that the Obama administration is well within its rights to kill enemies of the country, wherever they may be.
Paul has vigorously opposed the growing use of drones by the administration, saying the strikes violate due process guaranteed under the Constitution and permit the president to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Post by: CP on March 07, 2013, 01:19:29 PM
I think the root question is: Does the Administration believe they have the authority to use the military against US citizens on US soil?
From their statements it sounds like they do believe that.
This is one of the major concerns the founding fathers had. Everyone should be concerned today despite your political leanings. Once a precedent is set, rarely is it repealed.
Don't be sidetracked by drones, drones are a tool. We must look at the people using the tool, the military complex. It should also be noted the administration is constantly expanding the definition of enemy combatant, terrorist, etc. to include fringe thinkers. Groups that are currently not hostile to the government but are opposed to their policies.
Google “whiskey rebellion” and you will see that the first US President to use the military against US citizens on US soil was George Washington. I believe he was one of our founding fathers.
Post by: thatkidwho on March 07, 2013, 03:01:53 PM
It also is a first example of the same thing going on now. Statists vs individualist. On a positive side the right to assemble was unchallenged by the federalist/statists after that.
Post by: thatkidwho on March 07, 2013, 03:05:17 PM
Do you know how combatant is currently defined for US citizens?
Regarding overseas a combatant is anyone of age to serve in the military in vensinty of a drone attack.
Post by: xd2005 on March 07, 2013, 03:18:52 PM
Post by: CP on March 07, 2013, 03:25:10 PM
The army was not used, it was gathered and marched but not used. My understanding is Hamilton imposed the tax, people refused to pay, Washington was sent to "collect".
It also is a first example of the same thing going on now. Statists vs individualist. On a positive side the right to assemble was unchallenged by the federalist/statists after that.
Casualties and losses:
3–4 rebels killed
0–1 soldiers killed in action; about 12 died from illness or in accidents
2 civilians accidentally killed by government troops
If George were President today he’d march the army south and take Tim & Tickle back to DC in chains by bayonet point.
You'd better stock up:
Post by: xd2005 on March 07, 2013, 03:57:35 PM
#randpaul's victory ends danger that US citizens will be zapped by drones. No danger last week either, but still...
Post by: JJD on March 10, 2013, 11:31:07 PM
I should state that the use of the term "combatant" was probably not appropriate on my part. The actual language states "engaged in combat."Regarless of the exact wording, would Ruby Ridge and / or Waco TX qualify? Would the Fed consider these folks engaged in combat? Would anyone who opposed the Fed using more than the pen, be considered engaged in combat?
Post by: csaaphill on March 13, 2013, 02:23:46 AM