Rand Paul

[PatInTheHat]

My feeling is that, if you don't intend to use the authority, you don't need to have the authority. The authority to drone-strike American citizens on American soil needs to be removed. Yesterday would be good.

It's not a 'need' for this 'authority', it's not actually a written down 'authority', it's really not any kind of actual 'authority', it's an argument over language/provisions/whatevers, or rather evidently a severe enough lack of it, that it's possible one could be made, just an argument could possibly be made that is, not the same thing as having any kind of written authority, much less policy, and originally it was just an honest answer by A.G. Holder to an honest question by a reporter...and oh man and didn't that just blow on by everybody, ~whooooosh~ I'm sayin', why I'm shocked I tells ya's!
And yes, yes any yesterday would have been a pretty good day to put whatever kinda kewl stuff in, that makes it iron clad that this is the type behavior we won't care for not so very much tomorrow.

[GNTLGNT]

...I found a certain amount of humor in him droning on & on about drones...

[Sepia and Dust]

What if you had an American Taliban in a truck moving toward a building and the intelligence was said person was about to make a suicide bombing? Right or wrong, if I were the President and the best intelligence I had indicated this person was about to kill a bunch of Americans, I'd green light the drone.

That's the sort of situation where the President acts as CiC to make an emergency decision. Law or no law, authorized or not, he should have the truck taken out and let the chips of propriety fall where they will. He doesn't need express authorization in those situations, and he shouldn't have it at all for less urgent scenarios.

[guido tkp]

funny...but didn't he just win the highly unofficial straw vote at the CPAC conference...making him the nominal lead for the next (R) presidential candidacy

like his dad...he's got some interesting stuff/ideas (but, then again, to a highly independent/nonpartisan kinda guy...alot of thinking people do)...

like his dad...alot of what he says/stands for is highly stupid...

and, like his dad, he doesn't seem to know the difference

and they both share an egotism that leaves out the very spirit of compromise definatively needed to make a divergent govt/culture like ours work well for all

[Terry B]

What I find scary is the thought of this drone problem happening during Bush II's administration instead of Obama's. What Georgie and Dickie could do with that.

[guido tkp]

well...at the very least...dickie wouldn't've had to shoot that lawyer himself, eh

[Patricia A]

well...at the very least...dickie wouldn't've had to shoot that lawyer himself, eh

[Tery]

Well, I liked that Sen. Paul stood up, spoke out and stayed on the floor to make his point. I even agreed with that point. Like Lilly, this will probably be the only time I agree with him. Everything else that comes out of his mouth is stupid and/or obnoxious. Like this, for example:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03...census-bureau/

It's not his job to make stuff up and then try to capitalize on it. He did his job when he filibustered. He needs to learn the difference.

[guido tkp]

yeah...i didn't mention that...but i gotta agree: after all this time, it was kinda amazing to see someone actually do the due diligence part of a filibuster...

the man put on his action hat and did the correct thing...unlike so many of his counterparts on both sides of the aisle

too bad he was off-base on so many of his points, but still....hats off

[unclelouie]

I don't usually heap praise on Rand Paul but I'm glad he is putting the US drone strike policy in the spotlight. I really don't think we need more ways to get around due process. Is it just me or does it seem that the same people that criticized President Bush for going around due process are trying to go around due process? I didn't like the Bush administration going around due process and I don't like the Obama administration doing it either.

Senator McCain was very critical of Rand Paul saying that the United States would never abuse this policy. The problem I have with what McCain says is that President Obama wouldn't abuse the policy but what about the next person we elect or the one after that? Looks like a slippery slope to me.

This is a symptom of what American politics has come to. Basically the equivalent of college football. You have half the people rooting for one team, and the other half rooting for the other team. When things go bad, half the people blame the "other team", and when things are good, they heap praise upon "their team". Supporters of political parties give "their party" a pass when they do something that they normally would have been up in arms about if the "other team" did it. And shows like The O'Reilley Factor, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence ODonnel.. they are like the political version of ESPN sports programs (the more inane, annoying, juveline ones).

Plenty of Bush supporters gave Bush a free pass on the Patriot Act, drones, wiretaps, spening us into more debt... but only became against those things when Obama did them. I mean, really.. where was The Tea Party protesting Bush's trillion dollar tab in Iraq.

Same goes for Democrats who were against Bush and the Patriot Act, but turn a blind eye to Obama and his NDAA (as well as his renewal of the Patriot Act). I guarantee you, if the drone program had grown under Bush to the size it has under Obama, Democrats would have been up in arms. Now they are like... meh...

I am not perfect, but I stay close to my principles, which is why I pretty much despise most politicians in both parties

I think Ill go talk about SK now!